DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — C. Sanchez and Oscar Benavides (Vol. VIII)
This entry is much lighter and briefer fare.
First, a return by Christopher Sanchez and then testimony from Oscar Benavides of the Border Patrol version of internal affairs. Most of Benavides’ testimony concerned Border Patrol radio transmissions. If you ever wanted to learn about 10-24s, 8-80s, and 705s, you’ve come to the right place.
From Vol. VIII:
84-85 – [Conference concerning the government’s not-yet-filed Motion to Suppress regarding 2 subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas “with documents”) issued at the request of Defendant Compean and to be served on 2 DEA agents. That morning, the government requested that Compean withdraw the subpoenas because the DEA will not allow them to be served and the testimony relates to matters covered by the Motion in limine. If Compean does not agree to withdraw, the government will file the Motion to Suppress. Defense counsel will discuss this matter and advise the Court.]
85-86 – [Conference regarding scheduling of the medical testimony to accommodate the doctors’ schedules, if possible. The Court was not sympathetic to the doctors’ concerns about their schedules.]
86 – [Recess for lunch. The Court noted that a motion – the government’s Motion to Suppress? – was filed over the lunch break.]
Witness – Christopher Sanchez, recalled for a limited purpose:
Government direct examination:
87-89 – As a part of his investigation, C. Sanchez gathered the weapons of the BP agents who responded on February 17, 2005, including a rifle/shotgun possessed by Compean and obtained from the BP station in Fabens. Sanchez identified this shotgun was the same as the one depicted in GOV EXH 13. Sanchez knew it was the shotgun Compean had possessed because it had been checked out to Compean on February 17, 2005. Sanchez identified GOV EXH 13A as the Fabens’ checkout sheet for a Remington 870 shotgun. [ GOV EXHS 13 and 13A were offered and admitted without objection.] The checkout sheet shows Compean’s initials for having checked the shotgun out that day.
89-90 – C. Sanchez stated that someone from his agency obtained weather data from the US Dept of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, for El Paso on February 17, 2005. He identified GOV EXH 86 as that weather data.
90-93 – [The government offered GOV EXH 86 for admission, asking the Court to take judicial notice that the document was a business record and exempt from hearsay restrictions under 803.6. Defense counsel objected for lack of foundation, because the data did not cover Fabens, and because the report on its face stated it was preliminary and not certified. The Court sustained the objection.]
93-94 – C. Sanchez identified GOV EXH 29 as a map/photo of the Fabens area including the border. The exhibit shows where the State of Texas land ends and the US land begins. The US lands extend from the drainage ditch at the foot of the levee to the middle of the Rio Grande. That land is exclusively US property.
95 – [Defense counsel had no questions for C. Sanchez.]
Witness #4 – Oscar P. Benavides:
95 – Benavides has been employed by the Border Patrol for 13 years, 6 months. His current position is field supervisor for the Office of Internal Audit (internal affairs).
96-99 – Benavides explained the BP communications system:
* Each BP station has a separate radio channel and a separate radio tower. The Fabens channel is called Rimrock and the El Paso channel is called Yandell. The Fabens tower is located near Sierra Blanca. The Ysleta tower is at the station itself.
* The communications headquarters for all stations is located in El Paso, and it is manned 24 hours a day. BP agents call the communications headquarters by radio when they need to run criminal or immigration checks. They can call from the radio in their vehicle or via a portable handheld radio.
* There are 12 stations within the El Paso sector of the BP, and each station has their own frequency.
* There are 3 methods of radio communication: Local or car-to-car communications; Repeater or communications that are relayed from the tower to the headquarters; and Repeater encrypted (repeater communications that are encrypted) and can only be heard at the BP headquarters or by someone who has the technology to unscramble the signal. There are buttons on the radios that let the user choose which method of communication to use.
99-101 – Benavides identified GOV EXHS 90 and 91, both of which are tape recordings of repeater communications from the Fabens station for February 17, 2005. GOV EXH 90 is expressed in standard time (1-4 PM) and GOV EXH 91 is in military time (1300-1600). [GOV EXH 90 offered and admitted without objection. A transcript of the tape recording, GOV EXH 92, was offered and admitted – provided an extraneous preface was removed – and that was done.]
101 – The Fabens repeater channel is called Rimrock and Benavides believes it is channel 12.
101-102 – If a BP agent wanted to get license information, he would use the repeater channel because that’s the only way he could contact the El Paso sector communications center where that information is available. Local car-to-car radio does not allow an agent to talk to the communications center.
103 – [The tape recording from the Fabens station for February 17, 2005, GOV EXH 90, was played for the jury and a transcript of the tape was provided to each juror.]
102-105 – Benavides explained the terminology in the recording. It starts at 1311, which is military time for 1:11 PM. The last recorded conversations occur at 1328:20 or 1:28 PM. The tape covers approximately 17 minutes but the tape is not in “real time.” The BP Internal Affairs has the capability of downloading repeater radio transmissions with a date and time stamp. A female computer-generated voice records the date and time. The downloading is voice-activated so they can get the date and time stamp. The BP also has video in some areas and, in order to match up audio and video, they need the time stamp.
105-106 – On page 1 of the transcript, Benavides explained there is a sensor number from a sensor hit in the field – when it is activated, it is computerized and sends a signal to the communications center. [Sensor hits are apparently also called 705s.] The radio communications officer relays a message to the field to check the sensor. This sensor hit was “705, port 23.”
106-107 – The next part of the transcript says “10-23 Compean.” The term “10-23” means clear the channel, emergency situation. The agent named Compean issued the 10-23 command. Next, it says “Sector, 10-4” which is the radio communications operator saying “Okay.”
107-108 – Each BP agent and vehicle has a star number – a designation – so you know who you are talking to. Benavides’ star number is Quebec 14. In this transcript, one of the Fabens’ BP vehicles has a star number Hotel 9173 and a Fabens’ agent has a star number of Foxtrot 15. The star number for the El Paso communications center is 8-80. Page 4 of the transcript says: “Attention, vehicle, hotel 9 1 7 3, 8-80, 10-18.” The term “10-18” means Are you okay, so this message is from the communications center to vehicle Hotel 9173 asking if he’s okay.
108-109 – The agents’ star numbers are assigned to match the station so every Fabens’ agent has a star number with “Foxtrot,” every El Paso station agent has a star number with “Echo,” and so forth. Benavides believes that Foxtrot 15 is Ignacio Ramos’ star number but he’s not sure. He believes Foxtrot 3 is Fabens’ supervisor Jonathan Richards.
109-110 – “10-1” means: I can’t hear you – say it again. “Foxtrot supervisor, 8-80” and “Foxtrot to supervisor, 8-80” is the El Paso communications center asking for a Fabens station supervisor to respond. “What’s your 20” means where are you located.
110 – Responding to a question from the Court, “10-19” is code for the agent is okay.
Ramos cross-examination:
111-112 – There are no regulations regarding when agents should use local car-to-car radio transmissions and when they should use repeater transmissions.
112-115 – Page 4 of the transcript includes a transmission from the communications center that the emergency or safety button in vehicle Hotel 9173 has gone off and the center sent a 10-18 to the supervisor to see if the agent was okay. The response was from Supervisor Richards that the agent was 10-19 – He was okay. Richards may have gotten that information in person from the agent or he may have talked to the agent on his local car-to-car channel. They call it local or direct.
115 – C. Sanchez prepared the transcript of the Fabens repeater tape recording.
116-117 – It’s possible there were additional local or direct car-to-car transmissions that are not reflected on the tape or transcript.
117 – Benavides does not know whose vehicle is Hotel 9173.
117-118 – Local car-to-car transmissions between Fabens station agents are broadcast in the Fabens station, but it depends on how far the signal will travel since it does not use the tower. It has to be in the local area. It can travel 1 mile or 10 miles, depending on the terrain.
119 – The Fabens station supervisor should be listening to the radio transmissions when he is in the station. Somebody in the station is always supposed to be monitoring the radio transmissions, but Benavides does not know if the Fabens station can listen to local car-to-car transmissions.
Compean cross examination:
122 – It’s possible that some repeater radio transmissions don’t get to the sector radio room.
122-123 – There are several buttons on a BP radio, including buttons to designate local, repeater, encrypted and emergency. The agent designates which method of communication by hitting a button. The radio stays on a button until it is changed so, for instance, if the agent hits local it will stay on local until he hits another button.
123-126 – At some point prior to his job in Internal Affairs, Benavides was an agent in the El Paso station. Local radio transmissions cannot be heard in the El Paso station because it’s too far of a distance.
126 – Radio transmissions have to go through the tower to be recorded. Only repeater transmissions go through the tower.
127-128 – The BP stations have portable and mounted radios. Portable radios are like walkie-talkies and can’t transmit as far. Mounted radios have an electrical plug and are more reliable. The mounted radios can receive repeater, encrypted, and local/direct radio transmissions.
128-129 – The tape recording at Fabens on February 17, 2005, started at [not stated but apparently prior to 1311] with a call for a “Blue van going 76” – “going pretty quick.” The last page says “10-24 at 1328” which means resume normal traffic because “we’re done with this for now.”
129-130 – As an agent, Benavides tried to use repeater transmissions because it was safer. He wanted it recorded and he wanted somebody else to hear him. Not all agents agree with his attitude toward repeater transmissions.
Government re-direct:
130 – Local car-to-car transmissions can be heard by agents who are close by. The safest way to be heard is through the repeater radio transmissions.
130-131 – Agents frequently hit their emergency buttons.
131-132 – On p 5 of the transcript, at 1354 (1:54 PM) it says “can you run a 28-29” which means a code to run a license plate. “OS” is an acronym for the Fabens office. The agent wanted a hard copy of a license plate faxed from the central office to the Fabens office. The license plate was “Texas 9 Golf Sierra Whiskey 89.”
Ramos re-cross:
132 – There are reasons to use local car-to-car transmissions. They can be faster than repeater transmissions, and you don’t want to tie up the repeater tower in non-emergency situations. If an agent uses the tower, that means another agent can’t use the tower.
Compean re-cross:
133 – In an earlier exchange, Benavides did not mean that local car-to-car transmissions could only travel 20 feet. It was an example.
Government re-direct:
133 – In reading the transcript, there was nothing to indicate a high-speed chase or any emergency. It just said a van was leaving the area.
Ramos re-cross:
134 – The blue van was going pretty quick so it wasn’t just leaving, it was leaving quickly. It was leaving area 76, the area near the border in Fabens. It’s an area popular for aliens and drug smugglers to cross. Benavides might not characterize that as a likely area for a pursuit, but it would be suspicious.
134 – Based on p 3 of the transcript, when Agent Juarez said at 1319 “It’s close. We got this baby,” Benavides agreed you could assume there was a pursuit.
134-135 – If someone called in on local that a vehicle failed to yield [to a BP command], that would indicate a pursuit in progress.
Compean re-cross:
135 – Benavides was not in the Fabens sector on February 17, 2005, and was not listening to the transmissions in real time on that day.
[Witness excused.]
DRJ or Patterico:
Has the common law record been put up too?
nk (4d4a9d) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:53 amNK,
I feel dopey asking this but what’s the common law record?
DRJ (605076) — 2/18/2007 @ 1:17 pmThe DHS investigative report:
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/OIG_foia_RamosCompean.pdf
steve (36e01b) — 2/18/2007 @ 2:01 pmOh, he could have told a supervisor all of that, be it truth or lie or whatever, but then it would have been reported and on BPETS, and he and his family would be dead now.
R.Sanchez would have relayed the information from BPETS to Davila and the hunting party. Barker fails to mention that for some reason.
[So now law enforcement need never report a shooting again — since criminals might find out their names? — P]
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/18/2007 @ 2:15 pm“(Barker noted that Compean, in an administrative proceeding with Barker following his arrest, also never mentioned that Aldrete appeared to have a weapon or something shiny in his hand.)”
What the Hay?! I have a copy of the transcript of the administrative hearing. It was held on April 7, 2005 after Compean gave a written statement to the OIG on March 18 talking about seeing what he thought was a gun in Aldrete-Davila’s hand. During the administrative hearing, Compean was represented by a union rep who tells Barker that Compean wasn’t allowed to give a statement at that time (on the 7th). Barker agrees that he doesn’t want to hear from Compean at that time.
On April 28,the hearing continues and Compean makes a short statement about why he didn’t report the assault on Compean by Aldrete-Davila.
My point is, Compean had already written a statement talking about the gun he thought the alien had. Are we to believe that Barker didn’t already know this during the hearing?
I have the transcript for this hearing posted here
Note that not once did Barker ask why Compean discharged his weapon.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/18/2007 @ 3:05 pmThe border situation has its own set of specific circumstances that makes it incomparable to other law enforcement agencies.
Crime is allowed to flourish there. These Border Agents have to face this violent, multi-billion dollar crime industry which is driven by the Mexican government and sympathized with by our own government.
The best comparison would be prohibition era Chicago. A patrolman fires off a shot at one of Capone’s guys and doesn’t report it because he knows with certainty that the gang will learn it was him.
It’s not a perfect comparison because Capone’s gang probably didn’t get as much sympathy from the Hoovers as these Mexican gangsters get from Bush and Alberto Gonzalez. The Hoover Administration probably never argued in court that Capone’s people were “just trying to feed their families”, as Bush’s DOJ argues on behalf of the Mexican crime syndicate.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/18/2007 @ 3:11 pmPage 4 of that OIG report.
(redacted) also informed the DHS OIG that Aldrete-Davila had told (redacted) that his friends had wanted to “put together a hunting party” to shoot some BPAs in revenge for shooting Adrete-Davila, but Adrete-Davila refused.
… referred to themselves as “the drug shift” and would allegedly allow illegal aliens to enter the United States so they could focus on drug smugglers.
Recall that OIG lied to Congress when they said that border agents were out to “hunt Mexicans”.
Wesson (c20d28) — 2/18/2007 @ 3:30 pmAnd further down:
[Agent’s Note: Aldrete-Davila would later inform the DHS OIG that he did not want to go on the hunting party because he did not wish for innocent BPAs to be hurt for the action of the unknown agents.]
In other words, if the agents had reported the incident so that Davila could have learned their names after the R.Sanchez BPETS search, Davila would have went on the hunting party.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/18/2007 @ 3:52 pm“Aldrete-Davila would later inform the DHS OIG that he did not want to go on the hunting party because he did not wish for innocent BPAs to be hurt for the action of the unknown agents.”
Hahahaha! I really believe that. Not.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/18/2007 @ 4:10 pm“Oh, he could have told a supervisor all of that, be it truth or lie or whatever, but then it would have been reported and on BPETS, and he and his family would be dead now.”
Except this matter has been public for two years now and these agents and their families haven’t been harmed, have they?
“R.Sanchez would have relayed the information from BPETS to Davila and the hunting party.”
Proof, please. And I don’t mean Sue Bob’s Diary.
lc (1401be) — 2/18/2007 @ 4:30 pmDRJ, #2:
The court file. Pleadings, motions, written orders, presentence report, some “paper” exhibits on occasion, etc. It is bound, the pages numbered (C-1 and so forth) and certified by the trial court clerk and filed in the appellate court.
When I was doing criminal appeals, I would read the post-trial motion first to see what errors the trial attorney had preserved for appeal. There are only a handful of issues that are “plain error” and can be raised on appeal for the first time.
nk (2ab789) — 2/18/2007 @ 4:39 pmHeh! In a real estate trial I did, I filed my response to the defendant’s discovery request — 500 plus pages. (I wanted a perfect record). After judgment, she filed a notice of appeal but it was dismissed because she could not deposit the requisite appeal bond. A good thing for me or I would have been hated forever in that circuit court clerk’s office.
nk (2ab789) — 2/18/2007 @ 4:47 pmBut only because Davila didn’t have a name at the time the hunting party was forming. By the time it was learned that Compean and Ramos were the names, Davila had already been exposed as the “victim” and Sanchez had already been exposed as someone with an interest in the matter. Davila and Sanchez thought of 5 million other ways proceed.
For what purpose was R.Sanchez looking for the shooter’s name?
Is it your contention that if R.Sanchez had discovered the names during the BPETS search he wouldn’t have informed Davila?
Why do you feel the need to argue against even the most obvious points? Are you playing “davila’s advocate”?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:14 pmJust as I thought, you don’t have any.
lc (1401be) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:17 pmAnd obvious points to whom? You, retire05, and Jer — oops, I mean Sue Bob?
lc (1401be) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:19 pmI hereby claim the copyright for “Davila’s Advocate” and “The Davila’s Advocate”.
…carry on.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:19 pmJ. Curtis #6,
Your Capone example is a good one. There are Illinois Appellate Court opinions from that era reversing convictions of gangsters for the murder of policemen on the grounds of self-defense. The federal government was not that big in Chicago yet. Big Bill Thompson was the Boss and he and the judges he got elected were firmly in the Syndicate’s pocket.
nk (2ab789) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:28 pmTo any reasonable person.
When I posted:
There is only one good reply to that, and that is: “It appears that way”.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:29 pmNK,
I don’t know if the court file is available at someone’s website but I doubt anyone other than the parties has access to the complete file unless they’ve purchased it from the clerk’s office, and that would be very expensive. I assume the file is available at the El Paso federal clerk’s office but it’s possible it’s been sealed and/or the file has already been forwarded to the Fifth Circuit. It may also be available online via PACER (the federal court’s online system), but I can’t use my business account to access PACER documents for personal reasons.
DRJ (605076) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:32 pmWe know Rene Sanchez tried to help his childhood friend and I admit I’m not impressed with his efforts to help Aldrete-Davila sue the US government. However, I don’t think we can jump to the conclusion that he’s in bed with drug traffickers. If he were, why would he blow his cover for something like this?
DRJ (605076) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:36 pmNK are you talking about the Motion for New Trial? I already downloaded Ramos’s MNT from Pacer.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:39 pmJerri Lynn #21:
Sorry I missed it. Do you have a link for it?
nk (4cd0c2) — 2/18/2007 @ 5:53 pmI just uploaded it:
Here is the Motion for New Trial.
Here is the memo supporting the motion.
I can’t find Compean’s. I know that he filed one because there is an order denying it on the docket sheet at Pacer.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/18/2007 @ 6:04 pmI know you probably haven’t got there yet but in Volume XIV there is omitted testimony by a Border Agent named Blanchette who may have blown R.Sanchez’s cover.
R.Sanchez called that BP station to find out more about the load and I guess Blanchette was suspicious of him and alerted C.Sanchez. Something like that is what I gathered from part of the closed sessions transcripts.
Whatever Sanchez’s degree of dirtiness, it would be difficult to believe that he wouldn’t have turned the shooter’s name over to Davila if he had uncovered it with that BPETS search. Wouldn’t you agree?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/18/2007 @ 6:05 pmJerri Lynn,
That’s a good Memorandum of Law in support of the M/New Trial. Do you know if the government filed a responsive memorandum or brief?
DRJ (605076) — 2/18/2007 @ 6:37 pmJ Curtis,
I think I’ll just plod along in the transcript and withhold judgment until I read it, but I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. I’ll be on the lookout for it.
DRJ (605076) — 2/18/2007 @ 6:38 pmI’ll go look. I seem to remember one, but I may be thinking of the Government’s response to the Defendents’ Motions for Downward Departure.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/18/2007 @ 6:39 pmHere is the Government’s response
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/18/2007 @ 6:52 pmThank you, Jerri Lynn. I read it. I’m trying to sort through the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. I certainly hope that the jury-tampering issue is not the only error that has been preserved for appeal.
nk (947b03) — 2/18/2007 @ 6:59 pmJerri Lynn,
Yes, thank you. I don’t agree with the government’s argument that the foreman’s actions were an intrinsic influence. I think it could be considered extrinsic because it was based on the foreman’s interpretation of the Judge’s instructions. To me, it is similar to the bailiff example cited in the government’s brief. In any event, I think there is still a due diligence/timeliness issue. I can understand why it might take time to get those affidavits but six months doesn’t sound like due diligence.
NK,
I don’t think you have to file a Motion for New Trial to preserve an issue for appeal. Wouldn’t that be based on appropriate objections in the transcript as set forth in the appellate briefs?
DRJ (605076) — 2/18/2007 @ 7:17 pmDRJ #30,
I don’t know. I’m learning federal criminal procedure with this case. I have very little background in federal court otherwise, and that in civil cases.
nk (947b03) — 2/18/2007 @ 7:57 pmI remember seeing a claim somewhere that the convicted agents had been offered plea deals under which they would have served little if any jail time. However now I can’t find the claim again and I don’t know how reliable it was. Does anyone have any information about this?
If they were offered such deals it is hard for me to understand why they didn’t take them. Based on the portions of the transcript I have read, their lawyers should have advised them that convictions were likely.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/18/2007 @ 7:58 pmHey, Patterico! We need a summary of the summary. Those of us who actually work full time cannot read this stuff.
Duke (4ba8d4) — 2/19/2007 @ 8:44 amPerhaps they did. Ramos and Compean may have been listening to the choir when they should have listened to their attorneys.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/19/2007 @ 9:10 amI hope someone can help me resolve an issue that has nagged me for several days. In Volume 8, page 94, Christopher Sanchez was recalled for a limited purpose. Here’s the part of his testimony that interests me:
“Q. And could you please point out, by using the laser, where the State of Texas ends and the United States Government land begins?
***
A. – the Government property starts at the foot of the north slope of the levee, which is about right here (indicating). And it goes to the middle of Rio Grande.
Q. Okay. And is that what you — is that what’s known as the special territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States?
A. Yes, ma’am.”
This seems like a strange topic for recall. I thought at the time and I still think this testimony was offered to respond to defense counsel’s suggestion that Aldrete-Davila could be arrested in Texas by a Texas sheriff even though he has an immunity agreement with the US Attorney. (Vol. 8, pp 76-77) However, I’m interested in other theories as to why the prosecution offered this testimony.
I always thought that the Texas border lands were privately owned. In Texas, most schoolchildren learned in Texas history that Texas was cash poor and desperate to sell its lands to the US during annexation, but the US declined and Texas retained title to its lands under the Annexation Ordinance.
However, in researching this, I think the Rio Grande is a mixed bag of sovereignty and ownership. For instance, 196 miles of the Rio Grande near Big Bend National Park is subject to the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Under that Act, the US government owns the land from the middle of the Rio Grande to the gradient boundary” – the midpoint between the place where the lowest and highest levels of flowing water reach the bank. To me, that sounds a lot like a description of what C. Sanchez says the US government owns near Fabens, but I can’t find anything that says the US government can assert ownership that far north of Big Bend.
Let’s assume, however, that the US does own these lands. I was still intrigued by the prosecution’s use of the phrase “special territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States.” That doesn’t sound like something that rolls off the tongue. It sounds legal to me, and when I searched for that phrase it turned up 18 USC Section 7 and 18 USC Section 13, a criminal law provision of the United States Code that extends the laws of the bordering state to US government lands situated on a maritime border.
Is the Rio Grande a maritime border? Maybe and, if so, it makes sense that the US can assert sovereignty over its maritime borders – although I’m not sure about ownership of adjacent Rio Grande lands given the Texas Annexation Ordinance. But getting back to 18 USC Section 13, it adopts state law and makes it applicable to adjacent federal land that is part of the US territorial sea. Thus, I think this means that if you do something in an area subject to federal jurisdiction that isn’t a crime under federal law but is a crime under the laws of the adjacent state, you “shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.”
Now I’m stuck. Am I mixing apples and oranges? Would the immunity agreements shield the parties from state law actions if the events occured on federal land? What about 18 USC Section 13?
BTW 18 USC Section 7(4) defines US special and maritime jurisdiction to include any “island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano.” Just thought I’d mention that.
DRJ (605076) — 2/20/2007 @ 9:00 pmIn Volume 8, page 94, Christopher Sanchez was recalled for a limited purpose and this is part of his testimony at that time:
“Q. And could you please point out, by using the laser, where the State of Texas ends and the United States Government land begins?”
“A. – the Government property starts at the foot of the north slope of the levee, which is about right here (indicating). And it goes to the middle of Rio Grande.
Q. Okay. And is that what you — is that what’s known as the special territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States?
A. Yes, ma’am.”
This seems like a strange topic for recall. When I first read it, I thought the prosecution might be responding to defense counsel’s suggestion that Aldrete-Davila could be arrested in Texas by a Texas sheriff even though he has an immunity agreement with the US Attorney. (Vol. 8, pp 76-77) Anyone have a thought on this?
DRJ (605076) — 2/20/2007 @ 9:28 pm[…] DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — C. Sanchez and Oscar Benavides (Vol. VIII) […]
Headline Summaries: Border Security at Traction Control (afad56) — 2/22/2007 @ 7:17 pm