Patterico's Pontifications

7/22/2007

Laura Ingraham Interviews Johnny Sutton

Filed under: Crime,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 12:00 am



I finally got around to listening to this hour-long interview that Laura Ingraham did with Johnny Sutton. She did a lot of shouting at him, but I thought he held his own quite well, and sounded like a straightforward and decent guy. The more I listen to the guy, the more I like him.

I still think he has a hard time defending the length of the sentence.

30 Responses to “Laura Ingraham Interviews Johnny Sutton”

  1. I liked him from the beginning. I think the people excusing the actions of these agents and the decision of the jury out of hand are just plain mistaken.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  2. I agree, Sutton has struggled to explain the sentence but I think 1 to 2 years would have been way too light as well, but its out of his hands correct?

    Congress took away the judges descretion probably for the better in light of some extreme situations where sentencing was actually too light.

    However this is why if you are guilty and you darn well know it like these two did

    TAKE THE PLEA BARGIN

    However, trying to give people the facts at HOTAIR its hammer time over there man o man some people want to give LEO’s the right “to shoot anything that just don’t seem right” as a Louisiana sheriff once explained to me.

    Wow, no more courts just leave it to the badge and the way of the gun

    EricPWJohnson (92aae0)

  3. Prosecutors like Patterico love to STICK together. For them to break ranks, it has to be REALLY egregious…nifongesque.

    The Suttons, the Fitzgeralds, can do no wrong in Patterico’s world.

    Liplock (7787b4)

  4. President Bush says Sutton, like Gonzales and Harriet Miers, are good friends from Texas. Same deal.

    Also in somewhat related news, Bush defiantly announced he was going bike riding after his colonoscopy. Thanks for the info there George. Sometimes you just have to laugh at what must be going through that bozo’s mind.

    Wesson (7b180b)

  5. During the trial, the second load incident was a forbidden topic because they were claiming it was still under investigation, even though it should have been thoroughly investigated in those interim months.

    It’s coming up on two years now since that second load incident and Sutton is still claiming that it’s under investigation. Conveniently, the longest investigation of its type ever seen.

    It is this scandalous cover up that people like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity should be trying to expose.

    Cipriano Ortiz was operating that stash house with the government’s blessing. He was caught with 1,000 pounds of dope at his house on at least two separate occasions, once in 2004 and once in 2005, and he wasn’t arrested. Then finally some l.e.o. busts his house again in March 2007 with another huge load of drugs and Sutton was finally forced to indict him.

    It’s probable that Ramnos and Compean were only the secondary consideration for why that October drug load wasn’t allowed to be brought up at trial. Cipriano Ortiz would have been called to testify and his history would come up and the only reason that Ortiz wasn’t in jail for 40 years at the time of the October load was because Sutton failed to bring charges after the 2004 incident.

    J Curtis (ecc9cc)

  6. The problem I have with this sentence is Dumbya’s unwillingness to commute the sentence simply because Johnny Sutton is one of his friends.

    It just goes to show you that this president is incredibly crooked. Impeach Dumbya and his boy friday

    JSchmoAZ (75ee03)

  7. 6. – I think Bush’s unwillingness to commute the sentence has nothing to do with Sutton. If you’ve listened to Sutton, he seems to have no problem with a lesser sentence. I’m sure Bush’s reluctance is all about the Republican party’s problems with the growing Hispanic voter population and the 2008 elections.

    JayHub (8ba390)

  8. Yeah, can’t appeal to honest, hard-working, tax-paying, voting citizens by arresting and prosecuting illegal alien drug-smugglers.
    I guess a Law-&-Order platform is a loser for both parties now.
    Glad to be an ex-Republican!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  9. I guess a Law-&-Order platform is a loser for both parties now.

    This is the most ironic part of the whole debate. You’d think Law and Order proponents would have praised Bush for supporting Sutton in this case. The agents broke the law. They were tried. They were found guilty.

    Nelson (ca96e5)

  10. There are two parts to Law & Order, Nelson. President Bush supported the “Order” side by refusing to commute a verdict that US Attorney Sutton’s office obtained. I’m not so sure that those on the “Law” side are as happy with Sutton’s prosecutions.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  11. I don’t get how Miss Ingraham can reconcile her belief that the agents were being forthright because they didn’t think they’d be prosecuted with the fact that they lied about the shooting and attempted to cover it up.

    I think Sutton’s right: usually they give border patrol agents the benefit of the doubt, but when it’s down to a “he said, drug dealer said” situation and there’s evidence that “he” is covering something up and lying, the benefit of the doubt goes out the window.

    CliveStaples (801f41)

  12. And to Mr. Liplock: In your world, it would seem, Border agents can do no wrong.

    In what hypothetical situation would the naysayers actually convict? A videotape of the crime during which the defendant identified himself with government-issued ID and confessed to the crime?

    CliveStaples (801f41)

  13. Well, I just finished listen to the Laura Ingraham interview, and you’re right, Patterico, Johnny Sutton does seem pretty likable. He was a lot more polite to that obnoxious Ingraham than she deserved.

    As far as defending the length of the sentences, a lot of us are uncomfortable with the prison sentences they got. But they knew what their sentencing exposures were when they turned down the plea offers.

    lc (1401be)

  14. I am a fan of Laura, but she came off sounding like Rosie O’Donnell in this interview.

    The main facts of the case, that the agents shot someone, then sanitized the scene and filed a false report, are not in dispute. The only thing questionable is how many years that gets you.

    They spent half the time arguing about another drug run that the guy did. Who cares? He is a bad guy, and probably deserves to be shot, but our agents must follow the rules of engagement set by their superiors, and they must not lie about their actions.

    Vatar (085be7)

  15. The main facts of the case, that the agents shot someone, then sanitized the scene and filed a false report, are not in dispute.

    Vatar, if only that were true. There are people who are still arguing whether the bullet removed from the illegal really came from Ramos’s gun, when the agents stipulated to it at trial!!

    lc (1401be)

  16. Ingraham was outraged about giving immunity to a drug dealing, illegal alien. But the jury knew aobut all the deals. So what. When cops so bad, you usually have to give immunity to a dirt bag. This was no secret in the trial.

    Alta Bob (a8cb4f)

  17. After 25 years in the military I think the sentences were reasonable. Like the border patrol we are expected to be honest with integrity first and foremost. To do otherwise means people with weapons and authority break down the very rights the rest of us expect to have.
    Once someone lies about the facts or worse, documents false information, my sympathy ends.

    voiceofreason (6e1b18)

  18. Sutton sounds like a Nifong with class. You expect me to believe a long time drug smuggler with 750 of grass was unarmed? That has as much likely hood as Clinton giving up chasing skirts.

    rpk (1db44f)

  19. I agree. His response to Ingraham’s objection on that point was weaselly in the extreme. It basically boiled down to “of course the guy was unarmed, the jury ruled that it was!”

    That said, Sutton does deserve some credit for semi-conceding that the sentence was unreasonable.

    Xrlq (a6076b)

  20. Then again, the semantic hair-splitting over whether “back” means “butt” is downright Clintonian.

    Xrlq (a6076b)

  21. The Border Guards should have been fired, not prosecuted. They woke up that morning wanting to defend the border of our country. The low-life illegal alien drug dealer wanted to hurt us. You don’t give immunity to drug dealers to prosecute border guards who shot a thug. Sutton continues to protect this thug even though he continues his illegal activity. I call that a criminal conspiracy, and another reason why Americans hate lawyers.

    Karen (db8841)

  22. 16.

    It should also be noted that Border Patrol Agent Arturo Vasquez, who testified at trial that at Campeon’s request he went back, picked up and threw away the five shells that Campeon had not already picked up, requested and was also given immunity before he testified. [Vasquez testimony, Page 6, Lines 7-20]

    JayHub (8ba390)

  23. 18. 19.

    In her closing argument the prosecutor asked the jury: “Was there a gun or wasn’t there a gun? Because if you conclude, ladies and gentlemen, that there was no gun, or reasonable belief that there was no gun, the defendants are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all 12 counts.”

    The jury got to hear all the evidence, they sat, listened and watched as Agents Campion and Ramos told their stories on the stand of what happened that day. They decided, based on all the evidence, that the smuggler did not have a gun and that Agents Campion and Ramos did not report the incident because it was a bad shoot, not because they just didn’t want to fill out the paperwork.

    Since the trial, the US Attorneys office has gone back and reviewed all the many drug smuggling confiscations in that area since about 2000. In only one did the smuggler have a weapon. It stands to reason, why should they, these people are only the lowly “mules,” the folks simply paid to bring the drugs across the border. They not the Mexican suppliers, nor the American dealers. Being armed only raises their risk of being shot or getting a much longer sentence if they are caught.

    In summing up, the prosecutor said to the jury: “Ladies and gentlemen, … if you believe that
    the reason that they did not tell anyone that Osvaldo had a gun, if you believe that it was a bad shoot and that’s why they didn’t talk about it, then you have to convict them. … They intentionally, knowingly, willfully, and corruptly acted on that day. They did not act as Border Patrol agents. They acted as vigilantes. … They used their weapons in a rank violation of the rules of the Border Patrol and of the United States Constitution. … [W]e’re not going to throw away the United States Constitution. We’re not going to wad it up and put it in the trash can because Osvaldo was transporting marijuana that day. Because if you do that, then we have no expectation of living in a free society. The rules apply to everybody, ladies and gentlemen, even to Mr. Ramos and to Mr. Compean.

    I agree with her closing comments 100%.

    JayHub (8ba390)

  24. 16. Border Patrol agent Oscar Juarez, the third agent at the scene, who testified that Agent Campean began shooting while he was still on the levee, not down in the vega after a scuffle, was also given immunity to testify. [Trial Testimony, Vol 9, page 4]

    JayHub (8ba390)

  25. JayHub,

    Do you believe the ultimate question was whether Aldrete-Davila had a gun? I don’t. I think the issue was whether, in shooting at Aldrete-Davila, Ramos and Compean reasonably believed Aldrete-Davila had a gun or reasonably believed that he otherwise posed a threat to them.

    As for whether drug smugglers typically have weapons, I note the following two points (one of which was in evidence and the other which wasn’t):

    1. One reason we don’t know how often smugglers had/have guns in the Fabens area is because the Border Patrol agents rarely caught, or even tried to catch, drug smugglers. Instead, they generally kept the drugs and let the smugglers go. Supervisor Richards, who had been a supervisor for 8 years (2 years at Fabens), testified that he had never once authorized a pursuit in his career. (Vol. 10, p. 196-197) Juarez testified that the Fabens’ agents typically let the drug smuggler go back to Mexico and kept the load, and that’s why Juarez thought Compean was going to let Aldrete-Davila go. Juarez assumed Compean was going to let Aldrete-Davila go because he’d seen it happen that way before. (Vol. 8, pp. 81-85)

    2. The prosecutor’s statements that guns aren’t used in border smuggling cases surprised me – so much so that I called the office of the El Paso Border Patrol on March 14, 2007. I spoke with a press officer and asked him about the prosecutor’s statements that drug smugglers on the border don’t have guns/weapons. I can’t put his reply in quotes because I did not take down his answer verbatim, but I can come close. Here are all of my contemporaneous notes from that telephone call:

    3/14/07 –

    I called the public relations officer/agent for the Border Patrol’s El Paso office at (915) [number redacted] and asked him to verify the representation the prosecution made in the Ramos-Compean case that most drug seizures do not involve guns or other weapons. After checking with the Director for the El Paso Division, the agent told me the Director said:

    It is true that most drug seizures do not involve guns or other weapons so the prosecutor’s representation was technically correct. The vast majority of drug seizures occur at checkpoints and involve drugs hidden in vehicles, and weapons are rarely found in those cases. However, drugs seized in border areas often involve guns and weapons. The agent emphasized that people should be careful in border areas because of the dangers presented by armed drug smugglers.

    Fabens is a remote and unpopulated area of the border and a favorite for drug smugglers who want to bring over big loads, and even Supervisor Richards testified that sensor activity in the area where this incident occurred often involved illegal alien smuggling or drug smuggling. (Vol. 10, pp. 270-271)

    DRJ (bea74b)

  26. **DRJ – “Do you believe the ultimate question was whether Aldrete-Davila had a gun? I don’t. I think the issue was whether, in shooting at Aldrete-Davila, Ramos and Compean reasonably believed Aldrete-Davila had a gun or reasonably believed that he otherwise posed a threat to them.”

    I agree completely with you. If Agents Campeon and Ramos had a reasonable belief of gun or other threat, they had the right to use deadly force. That’s the legal standard, not if he actually had a gun or not. But, I think the jury certainly understood this.

    It was all well explained to the jury in the instructions and by the defense counsel in their closing statements. Ramos’s lawyer, for instance, said, “If the officer used an amount of force reasonably believed necessary to … defend himself or another from bodily harm, then he’s not guilty. … And this is determined from the point of view of an ordinary and reasonable officer.” He also made clear that “The Government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. … And this would require them, we submit — this would require two things. The first is that you would have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Agent Ramos is not telling the truth when he tells you that he believed he saw a weapon in the hands of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on the day of this occurrence, or something that looked like one. But it also requires you to believe Osvaldo
    Aldrete-Davila is telling you the truth about this incident, and you must believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you do not, you cannot convict.”

    Well, the jury didn’t believe Ramos when he said he believed OAD had a gun, and they didn’t believe Campean, so they convicted them both.

    JayHub (8ba390)

  27. **DRJ – I’ll admit your point on the generally higher likelihood of armed drug smugglers away from the border crossings. Sutton’s testimony at the Senate Hearing last week doesn’t distinguish between where seizures were made, but still what he said was that in 496 seizures of drugs reported in a 4 1/2 year period by the Fabens Station only one gun was seized. That would imply to me that the expectation of the Fabens agents was that it was unlikely they would be in a gun fight in a drug seizure. Certainly, when OAD was in the ditch they did not act as if they expected him to be armed.

    What Sutton said specifically was:

    “Some critics have claimed that all drug smugglers like Aldrete carry guns, and that my prosecution of Agents Compean and Ramos had a chilling effect on other Border Patrol agents, causing them to fear using their firearms. I believe both assertions are mistaken. From January 2004 through March 2005, there were 155 drug seizures at the Fabens Border Patrol Station, totaling over 43,000 pounds of marijuana. In none of those seizures was a gun found. Over the longer period between October 1, 2001, and February 15, 2006, the Fabens Border Patrol Station reported the seizure of only one firearm from a total of 496 drug seizures, totaling more than 131,000 pounds of marijuana. This is not to say Border Patrol agents’ jobs are not difficult and dangerous, or that drug smugglers are never armed, but it is inaccurate and misleading to assert that all drug smugglers are armed. The fact is that drug mules in El Paso almost never carry guns.”

    JayHub (8ba390)

  28. JayHub,

    I understand the point you (and Johnny Sutton) are trying to make and I think you probably understand my point, but I want to review my thoughts to be sure we’re on the same page:

    1. There are rarely guns/weapons used in drug smuggling incidents at the border.

    This is true because the vast majority of drug smuggling occurs at border checkpoints, not in rural areas like Fabens. That doesn’t prove that drug smugglers don’t have guns in Fabens or other remote border areas.

    2. There are rarely guns used or found in drug loads captured at Fabens.

    I think it is also true that guns are rarely found in Fabens’ drug incidents but that doesn’t make it true that guns are rarely used by drug smugglers in Fabens and other remote areas. The testimony showed that Fabens’ agents focused on confiscating drug loads and not on capturing drug smugglers or their weapons. In fact, the Border Patrol agents routinely let smugglers escape back to Mexico. The only way an agent would know whether a smuggler had a gun would be by engaging in a confrontation and/or capturing the smuggler (which the testimony showed rarely happened), or if the smuggler accidentally or voluntarily left his gun with the load (which apparently never happened).

    So everything Johnny Sutton said could be true and yet it could also be true that drug smugglers in remote areas like Fabens were and are routinely armed. For instance, note that Johnny Sutton mentions “drug mules in El Paso” are not armed. Of course they aren’t. Drug mules in El Paso cross in an urban area at border checkpoints. El Paso and Fabens may only be 30 miles apart but they are light years apart in population and density.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  29. DRJ, yes, I agree. There is always the possibility that a drug smuggler could be armed. I would expect that’s why Campean checked out his shotgun that day and took it with him when he got out of the truck.

    My biggest nightmare conjecture about all this is that Campean caused the problem. Remember the first thing his supervisor, Richards, said when he showed up according to Vasquez. “You guys need to start apprehending these guys.”

    Now, Campean and Ramos weren’t there, but Campean might have known his boss wasn’t going to be happy. Then there’s the possibility that he might have felt “shown up” by OAD in front of his fellow agents. There he is, he’s got OAD trapped in the ditch, between him and Mexico with a shotgun in hand, but OAD fakes him, he slips and falls and OAD gets by. He could have gotten angry, clambered up to the top of the levee after OAD, knew he’d never catch him and decided to chase him into Mexico with a few shots to

    JayHub (8ba390)

  30. [cont.] … with a few shots in his direction to put the fear of God in him. Now, Ramos can’t see what’s going on. He hears shots, gets to the top of levee, sees OAD running away, Campean down in some fashion, thinks he might have been shot, assumes he wouldn’t shoot at OAD without good reason and fires himself, hitting OAD. He then goes to check Campean, who says something like, “Jesus, Nacho, I was just trying to scare the guy,” and they are both in a nightmare.

    JayHub (8ba390)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0905 secs.