DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — Arturo Vasquez (Vasquez Transcript)
The El Paso Times recently published an article reporting that Agent Juarez resigned from the Border Patrol and that Agents Vasquez and Jacquez are fighting termination. [Update: Hat tip to Tracy for the article.]
Here is a summary of the testimony of Arturo Vasquez:
From Vasquez Transcript:
Witness #7 – Arturo Vasquez:
Government direct examination (by Debra Kanof):
3 – Arturo Vasquez had been a Border Patrol agent for 3 years in June (2006). He was removed from border patrol duties March 19, 2005, because of a pending investigation regarding a shooting at the Fabens station.
3-4 – Vasquez was working at the Fabens station on February 17, 2005. His duties were to detect violation of the immigration laws.
4 – Fabens covers approximately 25 miles and has 3 areas or zones. On February 17, 2005, around 1 PM, Vasquez was assigned to Zone 2 which is about 26 miles from the Fabens port of entry.
4-5 – Vasquez identified the Fabens port of entry on an aerial photo marked GOV EXH 27. The photo included the Sierra Delta ditch and looked into Mexico. [GOV EXH 27 offered and admitted without objection.]
5-6 – The Fabens port of entry is in a trailer and compound. The Fabens station is about 10 miles northwest.
6 – On February 17, 2005, Vasquez was patrolling 2.6 miles west close to Martinez Farm.
6-7 – Before he would agree to talk to C. Sanchez, Vasquez retained a lawyer and required a proffer letter. The proffer letter said that any statements made to the investigators would not be used in criminal proceedings. Vasquez must tell the truth. If he did not tell the truth, Vasquez would be prosecuted for lying under oath.
7 – On February 17, 2005, the BP agents were supposed to be on the levee deferring everything back because they did not have enough people to work the area. The agents were supposed to stay on the levee and push people back or, if they made actual entry, to arrest them. “Pushing people back” means having an agent present. Sometimes mere presence keeps people from attempting to cross the border.’’
7-8 – Pushing back people is Vasquez’s job every day. In Zone 2, on the ridge, they might push back “40, 50, sometimes 70” people a day.
8 – Vasquez was patrolling the levee around 1 PM on February 17, 2005. He left his position because of radio traffic from Agent Compean that a van was traveling north at high speed near the Stubbs Compound inside the Island Road. Vasquez was about 7-8 miles from the Stubbs Compound.
8-9 – When he heard the radio call, Vasquez responded. He opened the gate to get to the levee and entered Wingo Reserve Road westbound.
9-10 – There are access gates to the levee. Most of the time they are locked with a padlock. All agents have a master key to open the locks. There are gates located at POE, CC Bills, and Grijalva. The POE gate is 2.7 or 2.8 miles from the CC Bills gate. You have to stay on the levee a couple of miles before you can come off, because the ditch prevents access except at crossing areas.
10-11 – Vasquez identified GOV EXH 83E as a close-up of the lock on the CC Bills gate, except the chain on the lock is different in the picture than it was on February 17, 2005. Other than the chain, the picture is accurate as viewed from the north side.
11 – Vasquez identified GOV EXH 83D as a view from the south side of the same gate and locking mechanism.
11 – Vasquez identified GOV EXH 83C as a view from the south side of the entire gate, as taken from the levee.
[GOV EXHS 83C, 83D, and 83E were offered and admitted without objection.]
11-12 –Vasquez unlocked the CC Bills gate and traveled westbound on Wingo Reserve Road toward the intersection of Rawls and Island Road. Vasquez did not see any vehicles matching the Compean’s description. The description put out on the radio by Compean was for a full-size van leaving the 76 area at a high rate of speed towards Island Road.
12-13 – Vasquez was initially reluctant to provide details about the radio transmission because he thought the motion in limine applied. Ms. Kanof told him he could discuss it.
13- Typically, about 5-7 agents are on patrol in the afternoon. When they hear a message like Compean’s, they all converge on the area. Vasquez was doing what he thought was his job.
13-14 – Vasquez did not see a van when he got to Island Road. He radioed that information to Compean. Within minutes, there was a radio transmission that Ramos had spotted the van near the lights at the intersection of Alameda and Fabens Road. Vasquez recognized Ramos’ voice in the radio transmission. The agents recognize each other’s voices on the radio.
14-15 – Ramos said the van was making a U-Turn and returning south on Fabens Road toward the S curve. Vasquez moved from Island Road towards Jess Harris, which is the south part of the S curve. Vasquez stayed at the intersection of Island and Harris Road. Island is perpendicular to Harris and there is a stop sign at the intersection. Vasquez parked, with his engine running, on Jess Harris Road facing north.
15-16 – Vasquez saw a gray van going south on Jess Harris past the S curve. Then he saw a Dodge pickup marked Border Patrol and a 2-door Border Patrol unit following the van. Vasquez saw the driver of the gray van as he passed. The driver was a “Hispanic male, moustache, slim.”
16 – Vasquez did not call out the description on the radio. It ‘s important but it didn’t occur to Vasquez to call in a description of the driver.
16 – Agent Ramos was driving the first BP vehicle. Agent Juarez was driving the second BP vehicle behind Ramos.
16-17 – The location where Vasquez had parked was asphalt. Vasquez estimated their speed at “easily over 50.” Counsel reminded Vasquez that he had estimated speeds of 65-70 mph in the past, and he agreed that he had said that.
17 – After the 3 vehicles passed Vasquez, he made a U-Turn and followed them, although they were already far away. He tried to go fast but once they hit the dirt road, he couldn’t see and had to slow down.
17-18 – When Vasquez arrived at the location where the cars had stopped, he had to wait for the dust to settle so he could see. Then he saw the gray van parked close to the drainage ditch. The Dodge Ram and the 2-door and he parked behind them. He also saw Agent Juarez standing by the driver’s door of the van. Juarez was about 5 feet from the driver’s door of the van, right at the edge of the ditch. He was a little bit away from the van and next to the ditch.
18 – Vasquez did not see anyone else. Juarez was just standing there looking south.
18 – As Vasquez got out of his car, he heard multiple gunshots. His windows had been rolled up. Vasquez looked around but didn’t see anything. Juarez was just standing there. He did not have his gun out.
18 – Vasquez did not hear anyone say anything. He did not hear anyone yell “Gunshots.” He heard more than 5 gunshots.
19 – Vasquez was about a van length and several car lengths away from Juarez and the road slopes down. Vasquez started walking toward Juarez and the van. Juarez started walking to the east, and Vasquez yelled out “Hey, what happened?” Juarez didn’t answer and continued walking east.
19-20 – In order to get to Juarez, Vasquez had to walk by the van. Vasquez stopped at the van and looked in the driver’s door. There was a cell phone connected to the cigarette lighter. Vasquez grabbed the phone and started looking through the numbers in the phone.
20 – Question: You didn’t think anybody was in danger? Vasquez responded that he didn’t see any other agents, just Juarez. Vasquez asked Juarez what happened and he didn’t respond. He got the phone. Vasquez said, “Hey, where are those guys?” and Juarez responded “They’re at the vega, chasing this guy.”
20-21 – By “those guys,” Vasquez meant Ramos and Compean. Vasquez assumed Compean was there because he saw his car parked on the levee, and he assumed Ramos was there because he was the first one. There weren’t any other agents there at the time that Vasquez saw.
21-22 – Vasquez didn’t try to help Ramos and Compean because someone had to stay with the van. He knew that shots were being fired and that Ramos and Compean were out there alone. Juarez was just standing there and seemed unconcerned, looking south. Because of Juarez’s demeanor – he wasn’t excited – Vasquez thought that nothing was going on.
22 – Juarez did not tell Vasquez that Compean had been assaulted. Juarez just mentioned that there was a shotgun on the ground, and he pointed it out to Vasquez. Vasquez was still looking at the numbers in the cell phone. Vasquez looked at the shotgun and then continued looking at the numbers in the cell phone. The shotgun was located on the slope between the drainage canal and the levee.
22-23 – Vasquez identified a photo of the general area, GOV EXH 29. Vasquez located on the photo Jess Harris Road, the van, the place where Juarez was standing, and the shotgun. The shotgun was on the southern slope of the ditch.
23-24 – Vasquez didn’t do anything about the shotgun and he wasn’t concerned that Compean had dropped it because he didn’t know it was Compean’s shotgun. Juarez didn’t tell him that. Juarez had just said, “There’s a shotgun on the ground.” Juarez didn’t identify whose it was. Vasquez thought it looked like one they usually got issued, but he wasn’t surprised and he just looked at it.
25-26 – Vasquez wasn’t sure but he thought that Field Operation Supervisor Richards and senior principal agent Lance arrived, and that Ramos and Compean came back from the vega toward the drain about the same time. That was shortly after Vasquez had arrived. He also recalled the arrival of senior BP agent Medrano. You get the title “senior BP agent” after 3 years working in the BP. Both Ramos and Compean were senior BP agents.
26 – Vasquez is a senior BP agent on February 17, 2005. He worked for 1 year in San Diego and 2-1/2 years at Fabens.
26-27 – Vasquez was still getting numbers from the cell phone while others were arriving. They have contacts, the ones they work for – that’s intel information for us and it’s beneficial. [Ms. Kanof seemed surprised at Agent Vasquez’s actions:]
“Q. But you’re no DEA agent, correct?
A. No, m’am.
Q. And you must DEA for every drug seizure, correct?
A. That’s correct, m’am.
Q. But you were preliminarily looking for information for what purpose?
A. Just to gather information for – you know, for the people that they usually contact when they are going to get across with marijuana loads and stuff like that.
Q. What would you do with that information?
A. I would provide it to intel and DEA agents when we talk to them.
Q. But they can look at it themselves, correct?
A. Yes.”
27-28 – Vasquez was looking at the cell phone. There were several numbers. They use codes – they go by numbers. Vasquez could not decipher the codes there.
28 – Supervisor Richards called them together and was concerned that they hadn’t provided more information during these events. The supervisors were wondering what was going on. He was concerned (and Vasquez quoted Richards:) “You guys need to start apprehending these guys.” Vasquez thought Richards realized the guy had gone back to Mexico.
28 – [Kanoff questioned Vasquez if Richards was concerned about communications.] Sometimes agents talked too much or too little. Richards seemed concerned that there was too little talk that day. .
28-29 – [Defense counsel objected to questions about what Richards told the agents. The Court sustained the objections and instructed Vasquez not to say what other people told him.]
29-31 – Richards gave instructions like a supervisor while he was there. Ramos and Compean were present on the south side of the ditch while Richards gave instructions. Vasquez used GOV EXH __ to locate Ramos and Compean. Vasquez observed Ramos and Compean return from the other side of the levee as he listened to Richards’ instructions, but they weren’t there when Vasquez had arrived. As they returned, one was about 5-7 steps behind the other. They were within earshot of each other.
31 – Vasquez received instructions and followed them. Richards took pictures of the van and then Vasquez left according to Richards’ instructions. Vasquez doesn’t remember if Ramos and Compean had returned from the other side of the ditch before Vasquez left.
31-33 – Vasquez returned to Zone 2, his assigned area near the Martinez Farm. As he returned, the gate was closed even though Vasquez had left it open. Vasquez wasn’t supposed to leave it open but he was in a hurry.
32-34 – As Vasquez was unlocking the gate, he saw Compean getting off the levee. [Vasquez located his and Compean’s positions on GOV EXH ___.] Vasquez had unlocked the gate and gotten in his car heading south. He saw Compean’s car stop, heading north. Compean got out of his car and came to Vasquez’s driver’s side. Vasquez asked if Compean was okay. Compean showed him his hand that had a little cut. Vasquez asked what happened, and Compean said “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my face.” Vasquez asked him again if he was okay and Compean said “Yeah.” Then Vasquez said he thought he heard gunshots. Compean responded, “Well I had to fire some rounds. I went through a magazine exchange and then I fired some additional rounds.” Compean did not say why he had to fire the rounds.
35 – A magazine exchange is when you remove a magazine from your gun, take it out, get another one, and put it in your gun.
35 – Vasquez identified GOV EXH 39B as a Beretta assigned to BP agents and GOV EXH 39B as a Beretta magazine. Vasquez stated that you exchange the magazine when you run out of ammunition.
35-40 – Compean didn’t tell Vasquez that he was being shot at, that he saw a shiny object, or why he was shooting, and Vasquez didn’t ask. Vasquez asked Compean how many rounds he fired and Compean said he didn’t know but he had used shells from the gun because he showed them to Vasquez. Vasquez asked how many he had and Compean said, “Let’s see” and counted them. He counted nine. Vasquez asked how many Compean fired and he said he didn’t know. So Compean looked at his magazines (one in the pouch and one in the gun) and made a count. Then Compean said, “I’m probably missing five.”
As they talked, there was radio traffic that someone had to return to the scene and babysit the van until the tow-truck arrived. Since Vasquez was assigned to Zone 2, he had to go back. He told Compean he had to go and Compean said he had to go to the station and do a report. Compean said, “By the way, can you find those casings for me. Since you are going to the area, can you look for those?” Vasquez said okay. Compean didn’t tell Vasquez what to do with them but he said, “Let me know if you find them.” Vasquez left for the van and Compean went to the station.
38-39 – Vasquez was not trained to immediately call an Evidence Response Team when there is a shooting. He was trained to report a shooting within 1 hour. He was not supposed to pick up the casings but he wasn’t taught that, he just knows to leave them there because it’s evidence.
40-44 – Vasquez returned to where the van was parked and waited to make sure no one was there. Then he started looking around. He found 4 casings in the levee and 1 between the levee and drain canal on the slope. He threw then in the canal. There were 5 total. They were .40 caliber bright yellow and weren’t old, and Vasquez assumed they were Compean’s casings. Vasquez identified the locations he found 4 casings, the van, and other landmarks on a photo marked GOV EXH 21. [GOV EXH 21 offered and admitted without objection.] Vasquez also identified GOV EXH 22 showing where he found the 5th casing. [GOV EXH 22 offered and admitted without objection.]
43 – Vasquez talked to Agent C. Sanchez in March 2005. Vasquez took C. Sanchez out to see the casings around that time.
45 – Vasquez searched in circles until he found Compean’s casings. He went out about 15 feet before he found them.
45 – Compean and Vasquez worked together but were not personal friends.
46-47 – Vasquez threw all 5 casings [in the ditch] at the same time. Vasquez identified where he threw them on GOV EXH 21/22. After he threw the casings and watched them sink, Vasquez called Compean on his personal cell phone to let him know he found the casings and threw them away. Vasquez identified the call on his personal cell phone bill marked GOV EXH 96. The call was made at 2:37 PM on February 17, 2005. Compean responded to Vasquez, “Okay. Laters.”
47 – Vasquez did not tell his supervisor or anyone else about the shell casings until the investigation.
48-49 – Vasquez did not report that Compean had expended 14 shell casings. He was under the impression that Compean was going to file a report. Only the case agent files an I-44 – a report of seizure and contraband. Vasquez thought Compean would put the shooting in his I-44 report and that Vasquez would be called later. When the OIG called Vasquez in March about this incident, Vasquez asked for a copy of the I-44 and that’s the first time he realized that Compean had not reported the shooting.
48 – Vasquez acknowledged that you don’t report a shooting on an I-44. The correct form to report a discharge is on a SIR – Significant Incident Report.
49 – An agent is required to make a report when there is a shooting but it has to be oral. The agent does not have to fill out any paperwork. Vasquez thought Ramos and Compean would make the report because they were the senior agents.
49-50 – Richards has been Vasquez’s supervisor for about 2 years. Richards never discouraged Vasquez from following the rules or filling out paperwork. Richards is meticulous about paperwork and “he wants to make sure, every time, everything is done the proper way.”
50-51 – Vasquez identified Compean and Ramos in the courtroom.
Ramos cross-examination (by Stephen G. Peters):
52 – When Vasquez first received the radio traffic that initiated this incident, he was on the levee road on the south side of the Sierra Delta ditch. Compean was about 7-8 miles away from Vasquez. Compean said there was a van leaving the 76.
52-53 – When he went over the recording of the incident, Vasquez didn’t see that Compean called a code 10-46 but, on March 18, 2005, Vasquez told C. Sanchez that he heard a 10-46 in progress. That was the purpose of listening to the tape – because Vasquez thought he heard a 10-46. When Vasquez listened to the tape, it wasn’t there. So Vasquez said that part of his statement was inaccurate.
53-54 – Why did Vasquez leave his post? “Fabens is busy for drug smuggling” and that area close to Stubbs Compound is often used to get drugs in the US. Vasquez left when he heard Compean say there was a van leaving the area at a high rate of speed. All the area agents went to look for the van. It was their duty to try to chase down this van.
54-55 – Vasquez described the roads he took to look for the van: Wingo Reserve, Rawls, Island, and Jess Harris. Vasquez stopped facing north on Jess Harris because the reports were that the van had already passed or was near the S curve, and that’s the only route he could take.
55-56 – It took Vasquez about 10-15 minutes to get from his post to where he parked on Jess Harris.
56 – Soon Vasquez saw the van coming toward him on Jess Harris, traveling south. Vasquez was parked half on the road and half on the shoulder. The van went straight and Vasquez did not remember the van veering toward him.
56 – There were 2 vehicles behind the van. They had their emergency lights on. After they passed, Vasquez made a U-Turn and followed.
56-57 – Vasquez was about 40 yards behind the last car. They were going so fast he couldn’t stay up. A safe distance is 1 car length for each 10 mph, so 40 years was not a safe distance. Ten car lengths would have been a safe distance.
57 – Q. “You weren’t going 100 mph, were you?
A. No, sir.”
57 – Vasquez estimated the other vehicles were going 50-60 mph after the S curve but it was hard to tell. He doesn’t remember the speed limit at that point.
57 – Vasquez had to respond to this call because, in addition to his duty to “defend the borders against immigration violations”, he also has a duty to “protect the borders of importation of drugs.”
57-59 – Vasquez had to fall back further when he came to the dirt road. He’s not sure how far he fell back because the dust blinded him. He couldn’t see whether the other vehicles slowed down. By the time Vasquez reached the parked van, his was the 4th vehicle there [including the van]. Vasquez isn’t sure how much time elapsed between the time the van stopped and the time Vasquez arrived. It was a matter of minutes because the dust was still in the air when he arrived. The dust settled for several minutes after he arrived.
59-60 – Vasquez traveled 200-250 yards from the time he first saw the van until he parked. [Counsel calculated that 250 yards is an 1/8 of a mile, and if they traveled at 60 mph it would only take seconds to travel that distance.] Vasquez said he had to slow down and it was a short distance.
60 – Vasquez heard gunshots as he was getting out of his car. He did not know whose guns were being fired. He did not know if it was a BP gun, or whether it was one or more guns.
60-61 – Vasquez saw Juarez was just standing there. Juarez seemed to notice there was gunfire but he did not seem excited. Vasquez wasn’t surprised or shocked and he didn’t react because Juarez was just standing there.
61 – Juarez did not tell Vasquez he had seen Ramos.
61-62 – Vasquez started looking in the driver’s door of the van. He did not smell marijuana. He got in the van and saw bundles, but he didn’t know what they were and couldn’t smell them.
62=63 – Vasquez noticed a cell phone attached to a charging device plugged into the cigarette lighter. Vasquez didn’t see any other phones in the car. He started looking at the numbers on the cell phone. Vasquez found some interesting numbers – some codes.
63 – Vasquez and Juarez never discussed the shots. The only person Vasquez discussed it with was Compean later in the day.
64 – Vasquez did not think he had a duty to report the gunshots. He has a duty to report a discharge that he is involved in or observes. He did not observe a gun being discharged. Vasquez was told there was a gun discharge, which, to him was “quite different.” Gunfire that he hears and doesn’t see “could be on the Mexican side. What is the purpose of reporting it?”
64 – Vasquez heard someone tell Richards that Compean had been hit or assaulted.
64-65 – Vasquez left the scene and saw Compean at the CC Bills gate. About 20 minutes later, after Vasquez had called Compean on his cell phone at 2:37 PM, Vasquez saw Compean and then Vasquez went to the bank.
66 – Vasquez, Juarez, and Ramos were on the north side of the ditch; and Compean and Yrigoyen were on the south side.
66-67 – Ramos was not with Compean when Vasquez saw Compean at the CC Bills gate, and Ramos did not participate in that conversation. Ramos did not ask Vasquez to pick up shells and he never discussed the shooting with Vasquez. Ramos never discussed not reporting the shooting.
67 – Vasquez believed that you didn’t have to report gunshots if you didn’t witness it, and Vasquez did not witness the shooting.
67-68 – Vasquez was contacted by someone he didn’t know [Freddie Bonilla – defense investigator?] by phone and letter. Vasquez did not answer or respond. Vasquez asked C. Sanchez if he had to respond and Sanchez said it was up to Vasquez. Vasquez chose not to respond. Vasquez did not want to talk to anybody. When questioned why, Vasquez answered he just didn’t want to.
68-69 – Vasquez said he thought Compean was going to report the shooting. When questioned why he picked up the shells, Vasquez replied “Stupid, I guess. I wasn’t thinking right.” Compean didn’t tell Vasquez why he wanted him to pick up the shells and Vasquez didn’t intend to interfere with an investigation. Vasquez didn’t think “at the moment.”
68 – Compean didn’t tell Vasquez that he had hit the alien or that the alien had been hit at all.
Compean cross-examination (by Chris Antcliff):
69-70 – Vasquez reviewed GOV EXH 92, a transcript of the radio call that day, and he is aware the incident started at 1311 and ended at 1328 when Richards called to resume normal radio traffic. That’s a span of about 17 minutes.
71 – In his March 18, 2005, statement, Vasquez said he heard a 1046 call on a full-size van. He decided he must have been mistaken when he listened to the transcript and didn’t hear a 1046 call. Vasquez doesn’t know if local car-to-car transmissions record on the repeater, and he doesn’t know if Compean made the 1046 call on the local channel as opposed to the repeater.
71-72 – Something in Compean’s call made Vasquez leave his post. Vasquez would have stayed at his post if the call had been “There’s a van moving along here.”
72 – Vasquez first went to the CC Bills gate, unlocked it, crossed through, and relocked it. When Vasquez responded to Compean’s call, he unlocked and crossed through the gate but he did not relock it. When he returned to the CC Bills gate later, the gate was locked. A BP agent could have locked it but there are also irrigation commission workers and other people working on the levee so it could have been them, too. Only the BP agents have keys but if the gate is open, they will close it sometimes.
73-74 – On Jess Harris Road, Vasquez saw the van and 2 BP vehicles pass by. The BP vehicles have their emergency lights on. Vasquez made a U-Turn and followed. He was doing over 40 but he could not keep up. Vasquez doesn’t know how fast they were going because they were already ahead of him. It took Vasquez less than a minute to make the U-Turn.
74-75 – Vasquez has been involved in other vehicle drug seizures at the border: He was case agent on 2 and assisted on 4-5 others. He had other foot chases when they come across the border with marijuana on their back.
75 – Vasquez gets excited when he’s involved in a call-out for suspected drug smuggling. He wants to catch them because it’s his job.
75 – Vasquez slows down when Jess Harris turned into a dirt road because of the dust. He can’t remember seeing the emergency lights. Both vehicles had emergency lights on when they went by Vasquez.
75-76 – Vasquez gets to the drainage ditch where Jess Harris Road terminates. There are at least 3 vehicles there already and no drivers in the vehicles. Juarez was there. Vasquez and Juarez are friends, and Vasquez used to carpool with Juarez to work. Before he was put on administrative leave, Vasquez socialized with Juarez but they haven’t seen each other in the year they have been on administrative leave.
76-77 – Vasquez doesn’t remember if Juarez’s front door is open but he saw Juarez standing by the van. Vasquez saw Ramos pickup truck because it’s tall, and Juarez’s Tahoe. From where the van stopped, the next vehicle was Ramos’ pickup truck and then Juarez’s Tahoe. They were “more or less” in that order but not aligned behind.
77-78 – Vasquez identified GOV EXH 9 as a photo of the gray van and Ramos’ pickup truck. Vasquez does not remember seeing any BP vehicle next to the van at the ditch.
78-79 – Vasquez did not see Ramos when he arrived at the ditch. He does not remember seeing Ramos’ car door open. Vasquez moved to where Juarez was standing. Vasquez saw Compean’s vehicle on the levee on the south side of the ditch, but Vasquez did not see Compean.
79-80 – Vasquez went to the driver’s side door of the van and opened the door. He did not check for weapons under the seats. Agents are trained to look for anything in the vehicle but not necessarily for weapons. Vasquez did not look under the seats at all. He found the cell phone between the seats, charging, and he found bundles of what he believed to be marijuana in the back. Vasquez has smelled marijuana before but he did not smell any that day. He recognized the bundles.
80-81 – Vasquez got the phone and spent a lot of time with it. He doesn’t remember walking to the other side of the van. He was focused on the phone but he didn’t have time to find the directory before Richards and Lance arrived and Vasquez had to hand the phone to Agent Medrano.
81-84 – [Government objected to defense counsel’s question about codes on the cell phone. Bench conference regarding the relevance of the codes. The Court permitted counsel to question Vasquez regarding whether there had been recent calls made, because Aldrete-Davila had testified he did not use the cell phone and because Vasquez did not mention he looked at the cell phone in his statement. The Court sustained the objection to questions about codes because “it’s late on Friday” and because “Aldrete-Davila is not on trial” – “Everyone knows he’s smuggling drugs.”]
[The parties also discussed whether to suspend testimony to take one of the doctors that had to leave. The Court ruled they would finish this witness first.]
[Court in recess.]
85 – When he was looking at the codes, Vasquez did not notice evidence of recent cell phone use. He was looking for the codes.
85-86 – Vasquez identified GOV EXH 28, a photo of the area where the incident took place. Vasquez can see Jess Harris Road in the photo. Jess Harris Road is flat so Vasquez had a clear view of what was ahead, except for the dust. The dust begins to settle and he can see in seconds.
86-87 – Vasquez said Compean was on the levee “according to Juarez’s statement” – but Vasquez was not referring to Juarez’s written statement. He meant Juarez’s statement to Vasquez at the scene that they were chasing the driver. Juarez was standing at the drainage canal. Vasquez identified his location on GOV EXH 28. Vasquez never saw Juarez go in the ditch.
87-88 – Vasquez identified GOV EXH 51B as another photo of this area. Vasquez demonstrated where he first saw Compean coming back from the vega. From his position, Vasquez could not see over the levee. He’s not sure how tall the levee is but it’s raised up over the ground.
88 – Using GOV EXH 51B, Vasquez identified where Juarez pointed out the shotgun on the ground.
88 – When he got out of his car, Vasquez heard multiple gunshots. They were close together and there was no pause: “Several shots together and that was it.” Vasquez didn’t count them. He doesn’t know how many shots were fired.
89 – Vasquez didn’t hear any voices or people yelling “Parate” or “Stop.”
89-90 – Vasquez never saw the driver of the van after Vasquez stopped his car. Vasquez didn’t see Compean on the levee and he never saw a confrontation between the driver and Compean.
90-91 – Vasquez saw Juarez walk to within about 3-5 yards of the driver’s side of the van, on the east side. Juarez did not open the door. Vasquez never saw Juarez draw his gun, and he never saw any agent draw his gun that day.
91 – The first time Vasquez saw Ramos and Compean, they were coming over the levee to the ditch. Compean did not cross the ditch because his car was on the south side by the levee. Ramos had to come across the ditch but Vasquez did not see him do it. Vasquez is aware that Ramos is the only agent that crossed the ditch to help Compean.
91-92 – Vasquez did not cross the ditch to help even though he heard gunshots. Vasquez is trained to help agents in trouble and he didn’t know if Compean was in trouble.
92 – Vasquez did not see Ramos and Compean talking as they walked back. One was in front of the other.
92 – Vasquez left the scene immediately after Richards left. Vasquez doesn’t know what time that was. He doesn’t know where Ramos was.
92-93 – Vasquez parked on the west side of the road near the cotton field. Vasquez doesn’t remember if anyone parked behind him. He doesn’t remember where Richards parked. To leave, Vasquez had to turn around so he could go north on Jess Harris Road. He then went back to the CC Bills gate and unlocked it. Vasquez was still on the north side of the gate when he met Compean.
94 – Compean stayed on the south side of the gate. Compean got out of his car to talk to Vasquez. Today is the first time Vasquez has ever said that Compean got out of his car.
94-95 – Vasquez asks if Compean is okay and Compean shows him a cut on his hand. Vasquez can’t remember which hand. Compean doesn’t say anything. He just holds up his hand. Then Vasquez asks if those were gunshots he heard, and Compean said he had to fire a few rounds. At some point, right after he showed the cut, Compean said “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my face.”
95-96 – Vasquez gave a statement about this case to the OIG around March 18. He had a lawyer with him. There were 3 investigators from the OIG. Vasquez signed a proffer agreement. He does not recall seeing a government lawyer.
96-97 – Vasquez identified DEF COMPEAN EXH 8 as the proffer letter he signed March 18, 2005. Vasquez understands that agreement to grant him immunity in exchange for truthful and full cooperation. Vasquez believes he committed a crime by throwing away the shell casings and destroying evidence, but he doesn’t know the shells came from Compean’s gun.
97-98 – Vasquez found 4 shell casings on the levee and 1 shell casing on the north slope of the levee. Vasquez did not see Compean on the levee when he got out of his car, and he never saw Compean fire any shots that day. Vasquez heard multiple gunshots but not more than 15.
98-99 – In addition to destroying evidence, Vasquez failed to report the shots as required by BP policy. The penalty could be suspension. Vasquez does not think he committed any other crimes or policy violations that day. If Vasquez doesn’t tell the truth, he could be prosecuted for making a false statement.
99-100 – Vasquez gave a statement on March 18, 2005, when he signed the proffer letter. Vasquez did not put in his statement the claim that Compean said “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my fact.” Vasquez identified DEF COMPEAN EXH 9 as the statement he gave the OIG on March 18, 2005. It does not contain “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my fact.”
101 – Some things Vasquez remembers better now than he did in March 2005, a month after the event.
101 – Compean told Vasquez he had to make a magazine exchange. Vasquez heard gunshots as he got out of this car. He did not hear a pause for a magazine exchange.
102-103 – [Defense counsel reviewed with Vasquez the conversation at the CC Bills gate between Compean and Vasquez:] Compean asked Vasquez to pick up the shell casings and he showed Vasquez some shell casings. Vasquez doesn’t remember if the casings were in his cut hand. Vasquez doesn’t know how many casings Compean had in his hand. Compean did not ask Vasquez to throw the casings in the ditch, but Vasquez did and then he called Compean and told him. Compean asked Vasquez to “Let me know” but he did not ask Vasquez to call him. Compean did not tell Vasquez where the casings were, and Vasquez can’t be sure the casings he found were Compean’s.
103-104 – Vasquez failed to orally report the discharge of a weapon within 1 hour as required by the BP rules. He was placed on administrative leave but is still being paid. Vasquez is not under indictment.
104 – Vasquez later went back to the scene with C. Sanchez. Vasquez doesn’t recall the date he visited the scene or the date he gave his statement. Vasquez did not give another statement after he visited the scene.
104-106 – At the time, Vasquez did not think he had done anything wrong when he threw the casings in the ditch.
Government re-direct examination (by Debra Kanof):
106 – Vasquez wasn’t thinking when he threw the casings in the ditch. He understands he is supposed to leave evidence for the evidence team. If he had known someone had been shot, he wouldn’t have destroyed the casings.
107 – Vasquez threw away casings he found, not the casings that were in Compean’s hands.
107 – Vasquez gave a statement on March 18, 2005, and he gave a second statement. He’s not sure of the date. The only change was the addition of Compean’s statement that “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my fact.” Vasquez didn’t include that when he gave his statement on March 18, 2005, because he “didn’t remember exactly the way it was said.”
107-109 – Vasquez doesn’t remember who told Richards that Compean was assaulted but he knows they were talking to Richards. The only people present were Richards, Arnold, and Lance Medrano. Over repeated objections by defense counsel, Vasquez was asked whether each of these people told Richards that Compean was assaulted. Vasquez said no to each. Vasquez thought there were a few others there it could have been but he can’t remember whom. They used the word “assaulted” or “hit.”
110 – [Witness excused.]
I don’t know if this is appropriate, but you ain’t got no email address. There is an outstanding blog devoted entirely to this case, so outstanding that the commenters are outstanding too. The site is called Sue Bob’s Diary. It’s dam good.
Duke (4ba8d4) — 2/21/2007 @ 3:59 amThe key points here seem to be Compean asking Vasquez to look for his brass, telling him that he had fired more than one magazine, and Vasquez finding multiple casings on and north of the levee itself.
All of this directly contradicts Compean’s testimony:
1) Compean claimed that immediately after the shooting, he picked up the casings for no real reason, and defense counsel tried to suggest that it was out of habit, since the only time he had discharged his weapon previously was in target practice, when you are supposed to pick up the brass. But clearly Compean was actively concerned about locating the casings well after the incident.
2) Compean testified that he fired less than one magizine, but indicated to Vasquez that there were rounds missing from the second. He also claimed that he did not have the casings when he talked to Vasquez, but tossed them away immediately.
3) Compean testified that he was on the ground, south of the (raised) levee when he saw what he believed to be a gun and started firing. But if so, the casings would not have been found on top of the levee and north of it. OTOH, Vasquez’s location of the casings would agree with Juarez’s testimony that he saw the upper half of Compean’s body near the top of the levee, firing.
Also note that the location of the casings Vasquez found would have been where Compean could not have retrieved them immediately after the shooting without being seen by the other agents and his supervisor on the north side of the ditch.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:54 amThe supervisors were aware of everything. Here is the proof from a DHS memorandum filed by C.Sanchez:
The big question now is why the Bush Team never showed this memorandum to the defense.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 9:51 amJ Curtis,
C. Sanchez’s memo is consistent with this theory, too:
1. The supervisors were “at the location of the shooting incident.”
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 10:25 am2. They did not report the shooting because they didn’t know about it.
It’s clearly not consistent with #2. I’m not sure why you would think it’s consistent. Perhaps you should read it again.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 10:34 amBeing ‘at the location’ is not equal to knowing about the shooting or witnessing it.
There are, I gather from the testimony, line of sight obstacles (brush, a river, levee, dust mentioned etc) that are difficult to discern without knowledge of the landscape and/or access to the exhibits presented to the jury. That’s the problem with what we’re doing here. There is part of this we’re missing because we weren’t at the trial, weren’t at the scene, and don’t know the details.
Not that it isn’t worth doing, and DRJ is doing a bang up job on this IMO. It just has its limitations which are worthy of keeping in mind.
Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 2/21/2007 @ 11:11 amFrom the second paragraph of the memo:
(my emphasis).
That means everybody on that list, including the two supervisors listed, at minimum, knew about the shooting incident, and none of them reported it. So if two supervisors knew of the incident, how were Ramos and Compean trying to cover it up? Why were the supervisors, who at least knew about the incident according to this memo, not tried for obstruction of justice? And why was the jury unable to see this memo?
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/21/2007 @ 11:42 amDwilkers,
I’m glad you made that point. I agree that being at a trial is a crucial component we can’t replicate, and it makes me reluctant to substitute my judgment for the jury’s. On the other hand, I generally have a bias for law enforcement that makes me sympathetic to Ramos and Compean. I may be wasting my time (and I certainly contemplate that as I sit at the computer in the middle of the night!) but it helps me understand complicated issues if I look at them in more detail.
J Curtis,
I assume we can agree on point 2 from my comment #4, that agents can’t report a shooting they don’t know about, so I’ll limit my response to point 1. Point 1 is based on your earlier comment regarding this quote from C. Sanchez’s memo:
You read this part of C. Sanchez’s memo to state that the named agents were at the location and knew about the shooting. I think the memo is equally consistent with this interpretation:
1. The named agents were at the location.
2. One or more of the named agents assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting.
3. One or more of the named agents knew/heard about the shooting.
If we accept your reading of the memo, then we must believe that every named agent did every thing alleged in the memo. Surely you would agree that not every named agent assisted in destroying evidence that day?
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 11:48 amJ Curtis and Thirteen28,
It’s certainly possible that everyone knew about the shooting. Each one of these agents has a motive to deny knowing about the shooting, and I find it hard to believe that no one talked about the shooting afterward. I just don’t think we can discredit all contrary testimony based on a memo that might simply be inartfully worded.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:01 pmDRJ,
You said:
“Surely you would agree that not every named agent assisted in destroying evidence that day?”
If you read Debra Kanof’s closing argument, she argues that part of the evidence that was destroyed was the tire tracks left by OAD’s van. I gathered that those tracks would show whether or not OAD rushed up in the truck in a threatening manner towards Compean.
Thus, if all of the agents knew, heard or heard about the discharge of weapons, then all of them, destroyed the evidence of the tire tracks by allowing time to pass before an investigation that could have detected what the tracks showed was done. (Not that I agree with or understand why Kanof thought that the tracks were important evidence–but she evidently did think so)
To me, the most important part of the memo is that it suggests that there was evidence found by C.Sanchez that the supervisors at least had HEARD ABOUT the shooting.
Did you also notice in Richard’s testimony that he admitted that a “pursuit” form was required under the circumstances and that one was not done? He admitted that he was responsible for making sure that this particular form was done–and he didn’t do it.
The defense lawyer did not hammer this enough. Instead, he went into the administrative penalties for failing to report a discharge of a weapon. I would have found the penalty for failing to fill out the pursuit form and questioned about that too. The prosecution was trying to portray Richards as a stickler for paperwork and yet he didn’t fill out a pursuit form though he certainly knew about the pursuit!
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:02 pmJerri Lynn,
Let me start by saying that I like to have my ideas challenged by others like you and J Curtis. That’s why I comment on the internet, so I can refine and correct my views. It’s also interesting and helpful to get these glimpses into the future testimony and argument, and I look forward to Richards’ testimony. So far, he has been portrayed as a stickler for detail and yet he was in charge of a group of BP agents who did not follow the rules. Using a military analogy, perhaps Richards just needed better lieutenants and master sergeants, or perhaps this was a failure of leadership at a higher level.
I don’t know about Kanof’s argument concerning the tire tracks. That sounds like a red herring to me, too, but maybe there is something later in the transcript that will explain her focus on that point. I have an even harder time imagining that C. Sanchez’s memo was referring to destruction of the tire tracks. It’s possible but it strikes me as very unlikely.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:15 pmI never claimed that every named agent destroyed evidence.
According to the memo, every named agent did at least one of the following:
1. Destroyed evidence
2. Knew about the incident and failed to report it.
That is what the memo literally states.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:24 pmDRJ
On the paper work issue, I had a retired State Trooper, who has actually conducted investigations regarding shooting incidents involving cops, comment on my blog about the failure of officers to properly document. It’s a really interesting look at how officers often shoot themselves in the foot in these types of situations by being stingy with giving explanations and documenting incidents. His comment is here.
I am really enjoying your work on this issue. I’ve pretty much made up my mind and appreciate reevaluating my position with your comments and summarizing and analysis of evidence by LagunaDave.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:33 pmWe may not be able to fully discredit that testimony, but the jury should have at least been able to see this memo to decide for themselves. It definitely strains credibility to believe that anyone who was at least at the scene didn’t know about the shooting when it’s confirmed that several people on that list did know about it.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:38 pmYou’re ahead of me, Thirteen28. Where in the transcript was C. Sanchez’s memo kept from the jury?
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:47 pmIt’s not in the transcript that it was kept from the jury – the defense apparently never received the document.
See this for more.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:51 pmJerri Lynn,
Michael Hunter’s comment is excellent. If you have not already done so, I hope you will do a separate post on it and maybe Patterico will link it when we get to the analysis stage. I can’t speak for Patterico but I hope he will consider it. I think it adds a crucial and important dimension to the discussion of this case.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:54 pmThirteen28,
Thank you for the link. You’re certainly on top of the news reports in this case. This evidence reminds me of the Sipes’ case. If Judge Cardone views this new evidence the way Judge Hinojosa did in Sipes, that’s good news for the defense.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 12:58 pmYou’re quite welcome, DRJ – and thank you for spending so much time poring over these transcripts.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:00 pmJ Curtis,
The El Paso Times’ reporter agrees with your reading of the memo. Do you have a link to the complete memo? I’m sorry if you provided it before and I missed it.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:09 pmDRJ,
It is a separate post. I was just trying not to be too self-promotional here. I posted it yesterday here.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:18 pmJerri Lynn,
There’s so much material on this subject that it’s easy to lose track of things. Don’t let me lose track of your post as this develops, okay?
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:25 pmNever mind, J Curtis. I found the link at SueBob’s place.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:32 pmJ Curtis,
After reading the full text of C. Sanchez’s memo, I would certainly want to cross-examine C. Sanchez about what he meant by that memo – especially since the last paragraph focuses on (and even bolds) the duty to report allegations of misconduct. Thus, in context, this may change my opinion of what C. Sanchez meant in his initial paragraphs and I’m glad you brought this up. It will be interesting to see how Judge Cardone rules on defendants’ Motion for New Trial.
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:42 pmDRJ,
“It will be interesting to see how Judge Cardone rules on defendants’ Motion for New Trial.”
Have they filed a new Motion for New Trial? I had assumed that the trial judge no longer has jurisdiction but I don’t remember much about criminal procedure. Does the time frame track from the sentencing?
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:47 pmWell, not exactly. Mine was a literal reading of the memo which allowed for the possibility that some agents could have assisted with destroying evidence while not actually knowing about the corresponding incident.
It’s interesting that Johnny Sutton’s office responded to the issue by trying to obscure the meaning of “knowing about” with “being there”.
Everything that comes from Sutton’s office emits a whiff of deceit.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 1:53 pmBetween Sutton, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Mike Nifong, prosecutors are definitely getting a bad name these days. If I’m not mistaken, the host of this blog is a prosecutor as well, and I’d be pretty pissed off at the others if I was in his shoes. This kind of conduct will certainly be used to smear all prosecutors, even those that are on the level.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/21/2007 @ 2:05 pmJerri Lynn,
According to the link provided by Thirteen28 (comment 16, above, that I incorrectly referred to in comment 20 as an El Paso Times’ link – it is a Daily Bulletin link), Mary Stillinger plans to file a Motion for New Trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. I don’t know if it’s been filed yet but I assume it hasn’t since it will take time to brief, draft and circulate.
I read the first Motion for New Trial and the government’s Response, and those pleadings included a statement of the deadlines and grounds to file a new trial. If those pleadings accurately state the rules for new trial motions, and I assume they do, movant has 3 years to file a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 2/21/2007 @ 3:11 pmOMG! The Compeans might be their own worst enemy. They told the reporter who wrote the story linked by thirteen28 that the family had the document before trial that Stillinger says was withheld.
If the document is sufficient to help in the Motion for New Trial, hopefully that boneheaded statement won’t hurt Ramos. As far as I’m concerned, Ramos was hurt enough by Compean’s stupidity in giving a statement without counsel and by being tried with Compean.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/21/2007 @ 3:32 pmI saw that. They’re either shooting themselves in the foot or laying the groundwork for an incompetent counsel claim.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 2/21/2007 @ 3:57 pmI would certainly hope that one way or another it would be ruled that the jury would have seen that document, as it definitely has usefulness in challenging the testimony of Christopher Sanchez and possibly others as well. If the defense attorneys knew of the document and failed to present it, I would think you’d have a slam dunk case of incompetent counsel.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/21/2007 @ 4:00 pmDRJ (or someone else who might know) – is it the government’s duty to show defense counsel the documents even if one of the defendant’s family knew of its existence or actually possessed a copy?
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/21/2007 @ 4:04 pmIs the prosecution required to send the evidence to the attorney or just to the family?
I guess I’m not clear on how this memo has become known at this time if it wasn’t known before.
If any lawyer knows; is the prosecution required to turn over potentially exculpatory memos like this as one piece or can they hand it over in a huge box of papers without pointing out the memo that is problematic to their case?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 4:26 pm[…]
No. What it “literally states” is that for each agent named, “A, B, and/or C” is true. Thus each agent:
A) was at the location of the shooting, and/or
B) assisted in destroying evidence, and/or
C) knew/heard about the shooting
Thus, for each person listed, there are exactly 7 exclusive possibilities:
1) A, not B, not C
2) B, not A, not C
3) C, not A, not B
4) A and B, not C
5) A and C, not B
6) B and C, not A
7) A and B and C
The sentence may mean what you suggest, but then it is worded incorrectly.
LagunaDave (bd00f2) — 2/21/2007 @ 4:47 pmThirteen28,
In general, the prosecution has to turn over all relevant documents but I’m not well versed in the specific rules and exceptions that govern this area. Patterico will know. Offhand it seems to me that, if the prosecution has a duty to turn over a document, it shouldn’t matter whether the attorney or the client already has it. (Everytime I guess about something like this, I find a case that says exactly the opposite. Law can be very humbling.) However, if a defendant and/or defense counsel already had this document, it may very well adversely affect their success in obtaining a motion for new trial.
If I were defense counsel, I would argue that what matters is whether the memo was produced from official and properly maintained records.
If defendants or their counsel learned about this memo in some other way – perhaps from a Border Patrol source trying to help? – and thought it might be authentic, I assume they would want to investigate it and follow up. Maybe they did and were unable to verify its authenticity, or maybe the memo was misplaced, or maybe the client never turned it over to the attorneys. We’ll probably learn more about this in the future but right now it’s just a guess.
J Curtis,
The prosecution would never turn over a document to a defendant unless he was representing himself pro se. Documents would always be provided to the attorney. If Compean’s family had this document, it probably came through a back channel or, if defense counsel dropped the ball, through the actions of the attorneys’ investigator.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 2/21/2007 @ 4:48 pmThe memo itself is hearsay. It’s not something that would be shown to a jury.
But it’s my belief that it should have been turned over to the defense. If it’s true that it wasn’t provided to the defense, then they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine Christopher Sanchez on the memo. As we’ve seen on this thread, the memo is open to interpretation. (And investigation continued after it was written.) It’s possible that the defense would have investigated the memo and chosen not to confront Sanchez with it – but it’s a problem that at this point we’ll never know.
I don’t like conspiracy theories, but it’s this kind of stuff that feeds them.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/21/2007 @ 5:06 pmI’m hoping that the government can’t make some diligence argument about the document.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/21/2007 @ 5:12 pmI play on the other side of the ball from you guys. But from my perspective I’d call that memo 1.) Brady material, and; 2.) the prior recorded statement of a witness. I think both basis required that the prosecution turn it over.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/21/2007 @ 5:22 pmBrady material MUST be turned over. It’s the State’s constitutional obligation to provide that kind of thing to the defense. There is no diligence requirement.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/21/2007 @ 5:24 pmI guess I don’t see how the passage cited departs from anything testified to at the trial. It is was abundantly clear that a large number of agents eventually arrived.
Vasquez, who was the 4th agent to arrive (after Compean, Ramos and Juarez, in that order) testified that he heard the final gunshots as he was getting out of his car. Unless all the other agents arrived within a matter of a few seconds after him, they would not have been able to hear the shooting.
It was also amply evident that other agents knew about the shooting, and helped conceal the evidence – that’s why a number of them were given immunity to testify.
While there may be a technical issue if the prosecution failed to provide the memo, I don’t see how it materially departs from the evidence actually presented, nor does it in anyway exculpate Compean or Ramos.
The passage in question just sounds like a list or summary of the BP agents who might have knowledge or information relevant to the case.
LagunaDave (bd00f2) — 2/21/2007 @ 5:27 pmLaguna Dave:
It seems to me that your last paragraph answers the question raised in the first paragraph. Given that Ramon and Compean were accused of covering up a crime and part of the coverup included not informing their supervisors, the fact that the supervisors were on the scene and may have known about it is quite relevant and certainly departs from the coverup theory.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/21/2007 @ 5:39 pmLagunaDave,
I think that I must need a grammer refresher course. I was reading this to mean that the “and/or knew/heard” referred only to the shooting. I didn’t read that phrase to refer back to the other acts.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/21/2007 @ 6:16 pmIts a little unclear what “memo” the defense is talking about. C.Sanchez produced what is generally referred to in the industry as a “Pros. Report” — short for Prosecutive Report — which is itself a summary or narrative of all the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation. Different agencies prepare the different ways, but generally appended to the Pros Report are all the various documents that are referred to in the Pros Report. I believe it is the Pros Report that was released pursuant to a FOIA request, and it is that document which is now on the web as a .pdf file.
I think the paragraphs in question are part of the Pros Report. It appears to be nothing more than a summary of what is contained in other portions of the Pros Report, or in the various reports and memoranda of interviews (MOIs)prepared by C.Sanchez and other investigators through the course of the investigation which began in March, 2005.
To the extent that the MOIs of the 7 individuals reflect the info that C.Sanchez summarized, if those MOIs were turned over then there is no Brady violation. Brady requires the disclosure of potentially exculpatory information — and the disclosure of what those 7 witnesses said as reflected it the MOIs is the key evidence, not C.Sanchez’s summary. C.Sanchez wasn’t present the day of the shooting, he has no first hand information about who was there, who knew of the shooting, and who destroyed evidence. He only knows what he was told. As long as those statements were produced to the defense — Jencks Statements — then there is no Brady issue.
Proving whether or not the defense ever received this particular report will also be simple. It is pretty much standard practice that all discovery that goes to the defense is Bates stamped on every page – latest generation photocopiers do this automatically now. The prosecution keeps an identically numbered set of everything they send out, along with copies of transmittal letters that show what numbered pages were sent on what days. So, if there’s a question, the prosecutor says “The docs in question are Bates pages 00356-00374, and were sent to the defendant on January 16, 2006”. Unless the defense can show that they are missing 356-374, they are presumed to have received them. If they are missing 356 to 374, the judge will want to know why they never asked for them in order to clear up the problem.
Bottom line — things get left out of discovery all the time, but unless the defense can show that the missing info would have likely changed the outcome of the case, no new trial is likely.
wls (077d0d) — 2/21/2007 @ 6:41 pmLagunaDave,
All who are in your group “a” are also in group “c” but there are some in “c” who aren’t part of group “a” so “a” is an unnecessary redundancy.
You can’t have “a” without “c” so examples 1 and 4 are wrong.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 6:48 pmwls – it’s not unclear at all. It’s this memo.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/21/2007 @ 6:59 pma = “were at the location of the shooting incident”
c = “knew/heard about the shooting”
I explained previously, and testimont of multiple agents and supervisors made clear, that a substantial number of BP arrived at the location of the shooting after the shooting had occurred.
Those who arrived at the location after the last shot was fired would have only known/heard about the shooting if someone told them. There was extensive testimony to establish for each individual whether that, in fact, occurred.
Compean knew that he had fired and heard Ramos fire.
Ramos knew that someone had fired shots, and knew that he fired himself.
Juarez and Vasquez arrived prior to the last shots, and heard them. Vasquez heard the final shots as he was getting out of his vehicle.
Mendoza was apparently the next to arrive, and heard no shooting. He was one of the first to leave, and nobody mentioned anything about the shooting to him.
Jacquez, and Yrigoyen (with trainee Mendez) arrived next, and heard no shooting. Jacquez was told about the shooting later in the day by Vasquez. Yrigoyen and Mendez did not learn of it until the investigation.
The supervisors, Richards and Arnold arrived next, and heard no shooting. They did not learn of the shooting until the investigation.
Medrano was the last to arrive, and I am not sure he even testified (the other BP testimony for the prosecution is taken in the order agents arrived, and Medrano’s is not there). But he too was “at the location of the incident”, and could have only known or heard about the shooting if someone else who knew or heard told him. There is no reason to assume that occurred.
When a police officer reports he was at the location of a crime, it does not mean he was present while the crime actually occurred.
LagunaDave (bd00f2) — 2/21/2007 @ 7:49 pmLagunaDave,
As I was saying, your examples 1 and 4 are impossible. I’m pointing that out not to be a jerk but to cover all possible angles of the memo.
In other words, the government could claim that one of the agents was ordered to pick up shell casings without knowing why he was picking up shell casings and be let off the hook. This wouldn’t be contrary to the memo, but it would stretch credulity for them to say a supervisor did this.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:19 pmAnother thing about The Compeans saying they’ve seen the memo; Stillinger is the one raising the issue and she is Ramos’s lawyer.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:28 pmI knew that I should have taken that Logic & Rhetoric class in college.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/21/2007 @ 8:34 pmI agree that the report was conclusory. It’s also unknown to us whether it was complete. [I find WMD too often posts partial excerpts. Pun intended.]
But I disagree that this is not Brady. The defense should have been able to investigate and/or cross on this memo. Brady is not limited to potentially exculpatory evidence. It includes impeachment. With so much made of the fact that Ramos and Compean failed to report the shooting to superiors and collegues, the defense should have been provided this memo as potential impeachment.
For the record – I’m a person who believes that Compean is guilty and that Ramos probably is too. So I don’t say this as someone who’s a cheerleader for the two agents.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/21/2007 @ 9:44 pmHow is it “impeachment” — if the defense has the MOIs, which were drafted by Sanchez based on his interviews, they can cross Sanchez on the MOIs.
Whatever conclusions Sanchez draws from the MOIs is irrelevant since his conclusions are not evidence and they are not “fact” — it invades the province of the jury as factfinder for Sanchez to say “Supervisor X knew of the shooting.” Since Sanchez wasn’t there he can’t say that. He can say that an agent told him that Supervisor X was told, assuming hearsay exceptions apply.
But this particular memo is not a basis to impeach Sanchez since it is nothing more than Sanchez’s conclusions about what happened.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/21/2007 @ 10:14 pmThere is a similar situation in the transcript with another memorandum.
The prosecution turned over to the defense the referral memorandum from Rene Sanchez to the OIG, but they did not turn over a second memo from R. Sanchez’s supervisor, Russell Karhoff, referring the Fabens incident for investigation. Christopher Sanchez mentioned the second memo during his testimony and described it as a “memorandum from [R. Sanchez’s] supervisor, detailing what Rene Sanchez had told him.” Thus, C. Sanchez had 2 memos to work off of as he started his investigation. (Volume VI, page 266)
Ms. Stillinger stated she asked C. Sanchez to bring a copy of the Karhoff memo with him to the trial but he did not. Thus, on Friday, February 24, 2006, Ms. Stillinger asked the Court to order the government to turn over the Karhoff memo to the defense (Volume IX, pp 204-205). Ms. Kanof responded the government would produce the memo without the need for a Court order. However, when the trial resumed the following Monday, February 27, 2006, the government’s position had changed. Here’s what Ms. Kanof told the Court:
“MS. KANOF: The second issue, Your Honor, deals with something that has been requested by counsel for Mr. Ramos regarding a memorandum that was authored by Russell Karhoff, k-A-R-H-O-F-F, field operations supervisor in Willcox, Arizona, subject matter, report of alien being shot by agent. I would like to tender it to the Court. The Government did not see it — it’s certainly not Giglio, because we are not calling Karhoff. But the Government did not see it as Brady.
Ms. Stillinger would like it, so I would like to tender it to the Court, to make that termination, at some time before the defenses’ case-in-chief. And if the Court will assess that it should be provided, then it will. We don’t see the relevance of it, because he isn’t testifying. And it’s the Government’s position that, unless Russell Karhoff testifies, perhaps, there’s some issue of prior inconsistent statement on the part of Rene Sanchez, that it would not in and of itself be admissible. So that’s one thing we would like to tender to the Court.
THE COURT: All right. Has defense counsel even seen it yet?
MS. KANOF: No.
MS. STILLINGER: No.”
I did a quick search of the transcripts to find out how the Court ruled, and the following day the Court ordered the turnover of the memo to the defense. (Volume XI, pp 137-141)
DRJ (605076) — 2/21/2007 @ 11:13 pmThis type of episode isn’t unusual. The prosecution is generally captive to the agencies initial determination of what they produce to the prosecutor as the agency “file”. Some agencies — the FBI is the most notorious — have a very narrow view of what they think should be turned over. The defense and many judges who have never worked as prosecutors harbor the view that the prosecutor has access to every document in the file of every agent/agency who participated in the case. Supreme Court precedent says the prosecutor has constructive knowledge of all such information, but having actual knowledge is a different matter. So, its not unusual to have things come up during trial and the prosecutor learn for the first time that there is a document(s) that has never been produced because the agency didn’t think it was relevant or wanted to protect if from disclosure for some internal reason. When that happens, the prosecutor gets a copy and gives it to the Judge. If the Judge thinks it is discoverable under Rule 16, Brady/Giglio or Jencks, he/she will order it produced. Or the Judge may find it is not subject to production, and the defense never sees it.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/21/2007 @ 11:46 pmI honestly don’t understand your point. An agent/supervisor visiting the location of the shooting incident does not in any way imply knowledge of what transpired there prior to their arrival. So saying that my examples 1 and 4 are *impossible* is absurd. You may believe (on the basis of no evidence we have seen) that none of the agents fell into category 1 or 4, but that does not make it impossible.
There is no conflict between the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses and the defendants as far as who was present at what location at a particular time, nor is there any substantive disagreement about who was told by about the shooting and who was not.
In addition, “the location of the shooting incident” was on the south side of the levee, and the only agents who went south of the levee, or had a line of sight south of the levee were Compean, Ramos, Yrigoyen and Mendez. Later in the day, Vasquez returned to wait for the tow truck and collect Compean’s remaining shell casings.
No witness, prosecution or defense, testified that the supervisors were on the scene when shots were fired, or that they went south of the levee at any time, or that they were informed about the shooting. Rather, every witness with relevant knowledge testified to the opposite.
What you are saying, in effect, is that Compean and Ramos testified falsely against themselves to hide evidence that could have saved them from 11-12 years in prison.
If they wanted to take the fall to cover up Bush’s role in blowing up the World Trade Center, the Kennedy assassination, UFO abductions, or whatever, why not just plead guilty and avoid a messy trial that might put super-sleuths like you onto the Truth? 😉
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/22/2007 @ 3:03 amLagunaDave,
Examples 1 and 4 state that an agent could be at the scene at the time the incident happened yet they were somehow unaware that the incident happened.
All of the agents that were at the scene testified that they were aware of the incident.
Let’s leave it at that, please?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/22/2007 @ 4:31 amWLS #53 is right. A partial cure is a detailed subpoena duses tecum to the police department’s records custodian and witness subpoenas to every known investigator requesting that they also bring anything they have in writing regarding the case. It can be very awkward if you are dealing with an obstreperous agency but often the subpoenaed officers will talk to you after they receive the subpoena and tell you what they have and don’t have in order not to to waste their time. I would contemporaneously send a courtesy copy of the subpoena to the prosecutor as a way of hinting that he was also responsible for the production of any exculpatory evidence that might exist.
nk (79f144) — 2/22/2007 @ 5:18 amAn experience I had which might relate to this case. A police department I dealt with developed a dual reporting system. Pro forma arrest reports which went into the file and detailed “field reports” which stayed on the officers’s desks. It took litigation and a lot of adverse publicity to get them to stop it. The BP’s oral reporting requirement may be somewhat analogous to those field reports.
nk (79f144) — 2/22/2007 @ 5:57 amGood People
Just remember jury dynamics – We still have two guys who shot at a guy nearly killing him, one reloaded, I think the act of reloading weights on a 100% guilty scale about 95%
Missing or misused memos zip
Immunity or no immunity 5% maybe
Bullet in the assended regions, reloaded, no gun in AD hands – unanimous guilty verdict.
Its good to see which parties lied to the media about what was in the transcripts but in the courtroom you got a unam verdict
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/22/2007 @ 6:06 amActually, it weighs in the defendant’s favor that there was a threat to his life rather than he was just firing off a few warning shots to convince the smuggler to end his felony flight.
Do you believe that every cop who has reloaded during an incident is guilty? They issue extra clips to these guys for a reason.
Why would you think that the jury wasn’t misled if the prosecutors are willing to lie repeatedly to the public and congress about the case?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/22/2007 @ 6:45 amHe probably read that transcript.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/22/2007 @ 8:07 amCurtis
I know is extremely few situations where in a complete lack of forensic evidence to the contrary that police have EVER reloaded in a one sided gunfight
Also, the prosecution never lied to congress, congress has not questioned them yet, the department of Homeland Security, but not the prosecution and its highly debateable that DHS lied to the public and to the congressional delegation. I have an email that said that there was no cooperation from the Fabens post and they were investigating was it a conspiracy or an incident. Culberson and Poe have twisted that to mean that they were investigating something else – thats not what they were told.
DHS had 9 officers not cooperating with investigators that makes a conspiracy, most of these will serve jail time or lose their jobs or both.
Also, why don’t we question the grand jury, the Judge, the court reporter, the baliffs, the jury and their family members, lets just expose the hundreds of people that somehow went out of their way to punish two BP’s they never met.
Curtiss, step away from the emotion and look at the transcripts – I could point out the 9 page rebuttal from the BP union to Suttons statement – it bordered on fraudulence and obstruction of Justice, certainly perjury if they introduced it as a friend of the court brief – and they knew it – the union was pushing for bail, for a probation sentence.
The facts are this
5 BPs chased without authorization an unidentified hispanic male
They tried to beat him and he ran
2 officers fired multiple shots at him
They knowingly gravely wounded him
They left him for dead
They did not report it
they all conspired to cover up the incident
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/22/2007 @ 8:13 amThe quote does not say “at the time the incident happened”.
All the agents that were at the scene testified they were aware of a drug seizure. They did not all testify that they were aware a shooting occurred, in fact those who arrived after the shooting ended testified to the opposite.
And Compean/Ramos corroborated that testimony.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:26 amThe facts are this
5 BPs chased without authorization an unidentified hispanic male
We all know that illegal aliens are above the law but are you implying that all hispanic males should be above the law?
If you do believe that all hispanic males should be above the law; how would the agents know he was hispanic?
The guy was a felon as soon as he chose to flee.
I don’t even know where you got the idea that “5” agents were chasing him.
They tried to beat him and he ran
You are lying out of desperation. Even Davila never claimed he was “beaten”. Compean, who qualifies as a “he” not a “they”, tried to knock down a felon ( or as you would refer to him, “an unidentified hispanic male” ), who wouldn’t surrender, by using the butt of his shotgun as a baton.
2 officers fired multiple shots at him
Finally you got one almost right, except that Ramos fired once.
They knowingly gravely wounded him
More lies. Do you even know the definition of the words “gravely” and “knowingly”?
They left him for dead
Pure lie. Suttonesque.
They did not report it
they all conspired to cover up the incident
It’s a good thing that the supervisor decided not to file a formal report. It prevented R.Sanchez from finding names in BPETS to hand over to the hunting party.
If it was just a matter of protecting Ramos and Compean from a “bad shoot”, they would have just reported the incident and that would be that.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/22/2007 @ 9:53 amExcept that they did file a formal report on the seizure of the dope, which R.Sanchez did find in BPETS when his supervisor told him to investigate, and which he could have found based on OAD’s knowledge of the date/location of the incident if your conspiracy theory were true.
Yet no “hunting party” materialized.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:37 amThere was no name of a shooter in BPETS at the time the hunting party was forming because it was the weapon discharge that wasn’t reported.
By the time Davila and R.Sanchez had the shooter’s name, they themselves were exposed as interested parties and would have been implicated for any revenge murder.
Memorize it this time.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:59 amCurtis
A shotgun butt to the face is what
A. A greeting
B. A beating
Note the word tried…
look I’m not going to grace the rest of your comments – they are not worthy of discussion
Step away from the emotion of the Border – you and I probably agree on Border issues
this was a highly illegal shoot
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:39 pmHmm, yes, exposed by R.Sanchez’s request to his superior for permission to investigate. Just the sort of request I’d expect someone planning on a revenge murder.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/22/2007 @ 12:40 pmC. Not nearly enough force.
Your beloved felon wouldn’t surrender and was attempting to escape from the US.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:07 pmR.Sanchez was trying to find the shooter’s name so he could give it to Davila. That was his purpose. It’s irrelevant that he apparently got a supervisor to sign a permission sheet for him to do it after he had already done it, but curious all the same.
From the OIG report:
[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.
Memorize it this time.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/22/2007 @ 1:22 pmJ. Curtis is an idiot. Quite sparring with him.
wls (077d0d) — 2/22/2007 @ 3:20 pmYeah J. Curtis,
Don’t you know that we lawyers are always right and much smarter than people like you? I mean, how dare you as a non-lawyer hold and actually express an opinion that something might be a little off about our great Federal System of Justice.
Don’t you realize that if a jury says it–it’s sacrosanct and written in stone and is irrefutably “the truth”? Don’t you realize that Federal Prosecutors are High Priests who would never fudge to a jury about anything?
And finally, how dare you engage us High and Mighty Poobahs of the Law in debate about the law? It is such blasphemy for a non-lawyer like you to think that you might know something that we don’t or have a valid opinion about anything that touches on our legal system. I mean, we’ve been studying all the little, complicated intricacies of the law for years–and even if we can’t see the forest for the trees–WE ARE GODS!(oops) I mean, WE ARE LAWYERS!!
And, of course, you certainly can’t expect us to stoop to continue explaining or debating you on these points once we have “SPOKEN”. Only an “idiot” would think that. 😉
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/22/2007 @ 3:50 pmHeh!
I think Johnny Sutton and Andy McCarthy are posting under pseudonyms over here.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/22/2007 @ 4:12 pmthirteen28,
Andy McCarthy fled to Mexico around the day before the transcripts were released. He’s probably down there getting his talking points.
“Vacation” he call it. Hahahaha!
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/22/2007 @ 5:12 pmI thought he fled on the day his “good friend” Patrick Fitzgerald started presenting his “case” against Scooter Libby. He’s probably praying right now that there are enough sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome on the DC jury to “vindicate” his view that his “good friend” Patrick Fitzgerald did the right thing, otherwise he’ll never be able to show his face at NRO again.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/22/2007 @ 6:08 pm[…] I have noticed comments about Compean putting a new magazine in his gun during the incident. I wondered about that and asked Michael Hunter, a former State Trooper, who had this great comment a couple of days ago to explain what this meant. With his permission, I am posting his email here: […]
Sue Bob’s Diary » Compean’s “Tactical Reload” (1b383c) — 2/22/2007 @ 8:20 pmJerry Lynn –
I think these guys are all prosecutors. (I could be wrong.) I’m not. I’m a criminal defense lawyer.
This case caught my attention because of friends who were interested.
I read the entire transcript. I’ve followed the outside press – including WND.
I still think Compean is guilty beyond almost all doubt, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. I think Ramos is a closer call – but only because I would have played the case differently if I were his lawyer. And that’s coming from someone who thought Mary Stillinger was great. In other words, I think there was a way to raise doubt – not necessarily that he’s innocent.
I differ with these guys about whether or not that C. Sanchez memo was Brady – but otherwise… So far I agree with what they have to say.
Believe me, if it were otherwise – I’d be jumping up and down in support of these agents.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/22/2007 @ 10:53 pmTracy,
I’m not sure which “these guys” you mean but if you are referring to the people who comment here, maybe I can help. First, I’m a civil law lawyer. My virtually non-existent criminal law experience is limited to pro bono appeals representing defendants in the 1980s. Patterico is a prosecutor and I think JRM is, too, but Patterico hasn’t commented much on the transcript posts and I’m not sure whether JRM has commented at all.
I think NK is on the defense side of the bar and, while there are probably other lawyers that comment here, I’m not sure who they are or their areas of practice. However, I admit I generally have a bias in favor of law enforcement. I hope I have not let that affect my efforts, but it is a somewhat less relevant given that both sides of this case are law enforcement.
DRJ (605076) — 2/22/2007 @ 11:19 pmI’m a federal prosecutor with 14 years experience, and 27 jury trials to verdict.
I know crap cases when I see them, and this is not a crap case.
The agents weren’t in fear for their lives or the lives of others, so the use of deadly force wasn’t justified.
The only thing they knew about the subject was that he was a hispanic male on the US side of the border, and he was running from them. None of that is criminal.
I’m a white guy. If a police officer walks up to me, askes me a question, and I turn and run, that doesn’t make me a criminal. It MIGHT make me suspicious to the officer, but its not criminal.
Jury verdicts are sacrosanct — the jury decides the facts from conflicting evidence. That’s the way the system works.
Both Ramos and Compean testified.
The jury saw the faces, observed the demeanor, and weighed all the evidence that was presented by both the prosecution and the defense.
The jury then convicted them on nearly all the counts.
The judge had the power to set aside the verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal if the judge believed no reasonable juror could have found all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. She didn’t.
If the judge thought there was a reasonable possibility that their convictions might be reversed, she could have granted them bail pending appeal. She didn’t.
The Jerri Lynns and J.Curtises of this board are nitwits who don’t understand what they are reading, and have no context within which to evaluate it.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/23/2007 @ 1:28 amI’m a dumb knuckle dragging MWM with kids, but I was in the Orleans Parish District Attorneys office for a few months back in the day.
Gladly, I’m not a lawyer and know enough jokes to not get invited to their houses anymore.
Besides that – I am a negotiator – its my job to represent my clients and my employers against mutual and hostile parties.
Its interesting to meet people and organizations in stressful and high stakes situations.
That and I watched Bay watch twice and some LA lawyer show with ex patridge family members.
But I was the only one to have the trial transcripts weeks before the uproar ……. 🙂
I just was researching a book to write about the border when I saw this case years ago. Never ever thought it would become the Dubai Port Storm of the month club selection.
even more fascinated is the number of intelligent, well read, normally well centered people who do not understand simple stuff like:
Firing and reloading and firing again
Shooting someone with a 40 cal (ouch, triple ouch)
Shotgun butts to the face
the classic shiny object in the hand ploy
Cannot understand a written confession that states: “I tried to kill him” or “It was a bad shoot”
Simple stuff that a grand jury of knuckle dragging citizens like me can visualize through cartoon animation
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/23/2007 @ 2:09 amOdd, the sentences just above the one you quoted make it clear that R.Sanchez warned DHS that OAD’s friends wanted to put together a “hunting party”, resulting in a warning advisory being put out. Sounds like a pretty dumb thing for an alleged co-conspirator to do.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:35 amDarn, I’m just a physics professor. Where did all these sharks come from?
My hunch (and that’s all it is) is that Ramos is probably the one to blame for their ending up in jail, though. He was by far the veteran officer, with lots of additional experience and training. Ramos, at least, knew perfectly well what they were supposed to do. Compean would have listened to him in the few minutes after the shooting when they must have decided to conceal it.
And it’s seems likely to me that without the cover-up, Ramos walks for sure, and Compean quite possibly walks or pleads to a very minor charge too.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 5:05 amUh WLS,
I am a lawyer too. I have plenty of context. I also have sufficient grace, humility and lack of arrogance to prevent me from calling people nitwits when I am debating them.
You give us all a bad name.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/23/2007 @ 5:53 amAnd, by the way, I haven’t completely made up my mind about the case. I just see some things that my 26 years of practice and dealing with witnesses and other assorted human beings cause me concern.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/23/2007 @ 5:59 am[…] Arrogance and condescension are disgusting traits and should be avoided by all lawyers. These traits are especially disturbing when found in Federal Prosecutors due to their great power. A Federal Prosecutor who can’t find it in himself to be courteous to those who disagree with him and choose to debate him have little business holding the lives of others in their hands. By: Sue Bob @ 9:05 am in: Rogue Prosecutors, Agents Ramos & Compean, Testimony at Compean/Ramos Trial | No Comments » […]
Sue Bob’s Diary » Gary Brugman and the Prosecutor (1b383c) — 2/23/2007 @ 7:06 amSueBob
I think it was the old game “the Bloody Obvious” on British Comedy shows
That WLS was refering to after all you seem to miss the point that these guys were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on every charge but one which was not pursued.
Thats alot to come back from especially when the main witnesses are their co-workers, former LEO’s.
Except for the perponderance of the facts you seem oblivious to everything but the tinfoil conspiratorical aspects of this case.
Those pigs aren’t fishing.
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/23/2007 @ 7:13 amEric,
You may be totally right about the case. I’m not finished looking at it. That said, calling people “idiots” and “nitwits” who disagree and condescending to those who are not attorneys is just beyond the bounds of how I expect a fellow officer of the court to behave.
Furthermore, the best analysis of the facts I’ve seen, and which gives me pause, is contained in some of the comments of LagunaDave–a nonlawyer.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/23/2007 @ 7:51 amwls, you (Andy) McCarthy-esque (or is is Fitzgerald-esque) arrogance is exactly why I am having a harder and harder time taking the word of prosecutors in cases like this. I’m with Jerri Lynn – Laguna Dave has provided the best analysis that would give me pause as to my initial instinct regarding this case. You and EricPWJohnson on the other hand only make me more convinced that my initial instinct is right.
I shudder the thought that our federal government uses people like you as prosecutors. No wonder people are losing respect for the law.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:18 amOne more thing, Eric,
I may seem to get a little tinfoily at times–and I can understand your impression regarding that–but that is because I deal day in and day out with the results of government investigations and reports of those investigations–which I have to re-investigate and refute as part of my job. Fortunately, my clients have sufficient funds to allow me to go more deeply into the facts than do most criminal defendants. I’ve seen plenty of spinning, threatening and outright lying by government bureaucrats.
What I’ve seen in evaluating government investigations makes me want to go beyond the testimony at trial and into the investigation itself and how it was conducted and the impact thereof. I know that’s considered some kind of “sin” by the worshipers of the judicial system who consider jury verdicts sacrosanct–but I’ve developed a sufficient degree of cynicism about the whole system to tread there.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:29 amJerri Lynn, you too 1328
Well your website and your comments seem to take their facts from conspiracies that have no motive, really no evidence.
WND has jumped the shark with their breathless reporting as facts, everything a union rep or a border advocate says
Simply that the forensic evidence, the fact they confessed seems to be forgotten in all of this
We can find all the memos excupatory, AED may be the numero uno drug dealer in the world and a personal friend of GWB – it still doesent put the bullets back into the gun, a bullet out of his body, a weapon in his hand and the ink off the hand written confession.
You are far, far too intelligent to continue this in a disengenious manner, your undying devotion to prove law enforcement officers are wronged is highly commendable but these two deserved probably much worse than the tenner they received.
They are a threat to society and society judged that they spend a good portion of their lives away from that same society.
I know you are very passionate, considerate, and dedicated, but these are not the Pearl Harbor that the borderphiles want.
The tide is not going to turn on these two lets just hope the circus they unleashed in their selfish attempt to avoid punishment doesn’t get them killed.
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:32 amYou’re saying WND et. al. has jumped the shark when you write absolute unsupportable crap like this:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:42 amEricPWJohnson #89,
They are a threat to drug smugglers. How you elevate that to a threat to society is beyond me. I hope the Court of Appeals will look at the totality of the evidence, as it is supposed to, and come to the conclusion I have: The defendants prevented 740 pounds of marijuana from being smuggled in the United States; shot a felon who resisted arrest and tried to run away so he could be free to poison our children another day; and that their violation of confusing and somewhat irrational administrative rules should not have been escalated to a federal crime.
nk (79f144) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:58 amHa! That made me laugh.
I call you people “Normals”. e.g.:
Me: SoAnn So is having a dinner party Friday.
The Boyfriend: Ugh. Is this going to be a bunch of lawyers again?
Me: Don’t stress. There are mostly Normals coming.
Just as an aside, I find that lawyers who practice criminal law – both prosecutors and defense attorneys – are far less “arrogant, condescending and disgusting” than our “civil” brethern. Even the most boorish prosecutor I’ve ever dealt with fails to even approach the nastiness of many civil attorneys. Appellate lawyers win the prize for congenialtiy, though.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:41 amIt’s been over 20 years since the US Supreme Court held that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon is unconstitutional, i.e. illegal. Every cop knows this. Ramos and Compean knew it – that’s why they didn’t report the shooting.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:55 am“fails to even approach the nastiness of many civil attorneys”
Tracy, I’ve run into some of those too–especially in the context of some of the pro bono work I have done attempting to prevent hospitals from removing life-sustaining treatments from patients whose family don’t want in removed (sometimes the patient has been conscious enough to object too) due to futility theory. Some of the lawyers hired by the hospitals have just taken the cake–even those hired by Catholic hospitals!
The nicest lawyers I’ve ever dealt with have been some of the government civil lawyers who deal with Medicare/Medicaid issues.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:09 amTracy,
What you say makes sense but only if you assume Ramos and Compean thought no one knew they had fired their weapons and/or that everyone would help them cover it up. In a way, I suppose everyone did help them cover it up, but it still seems like a big gamble given how many shots were fired.
I need to read further in the transcript but I guess I’m not willing to say for sure that Ramos and Compean were actively trying to cover up what happened, as opposed to failing to make the required reports because of the lackadaisical standards of the Fabens station and/or because they (foolishly) tried to avoid unnecessary paperwork and effort.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:20 amAlmost, but what the court said was that shooting at a fleeing suspect was a violation of the Fourth Amendment “unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” (my emphasis).
… hence the reason why some of us have made a big deal about the lack of proof positive that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed, as the prosecution contended – not to mention the split second decision making required by the officers in making such a determination.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:25 am“as opposed to failing to make the required reports because of the lackadaisical standards of the Fabens station and/or because they (foolishly) tried to avoid unnecessary paperwork and effort.”
As Richards, the overall supervisor, certainly did when he failed to file a required report concerning the fact that a pursuit occurred.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:33 amThank you, thirteen28 #96. I would say that preventing the escape of a drug smuggler is sufficient under substantive law and reiterate my contention that the Border Patrolmen are only guilty of violating confusing and irrational administrative rules.
nk (79f144) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:38 am1328 –
I was responding to the post that suggested that the agents did nothing wrong in firing at a person “who resisted arrest and tried to run away.”
As for the lack of “positive proof” that Aldrete was unarmed – I also look at it as being a failure of the agents to convince the jury that there was even a modicum of proof that he was armed, such as would leave them with a reasonable doubt that the agents were acting outside the law.
I’m sorry, but it’s not every day that BPAs fire their guns – and even more rare that they’re fired upon. It’s exceptional. It would be exciting. It would be something that there would be a lot of talk about.
Their defense that Aldrete had “something shiney” would have been more credible had they said upon meeting up with all their fellow agents, “Holy shit! That smuggler was pointing a gun at us! We had to unload on him.” Instead of one agent finding that the worst he could say to another individual agent, “That little bitch kicked dirt in my eyes.”
It’s even less credible when you consider that after the shooting, they calmly walked away as Aldrete kept making his way to the border. If they really thought Aldrete was armed, they’d either be looking for cover or running to get out of range.
I ain’t buyin’ it. Neither did the jury.
I think what happened is exactly what the previous commenter seemed to condone: Ramos and Compean fired on someone “who resisted arrest and tried to run away.”
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:56 amOnce more, just to be clear, it’s not sufficient. To paraphrase the Supremes, shooting nondangerous fleeing suspects is not so vital as to outweigh the suspect’s interest in his own life.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 11:08 amOnce more, just to be clear, it’s not sufficient. To paraphrase the Supremes, shooting nondangerous fleeing suspects is not so vital as to outweigh the suspect’s interest in his own life.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 11:09 amBut that’s the most certainty you can muster – you think that scenario happened – and you have the luxury of doing it from behind a keyboard without having to make any split-second life-or-death decisions. Ramos and Compean didn’t have that luxury.
While you do raise compelling points in your comments, I still have a problem with the judge not letting in testimony regarding Aldrete-Davila’s second incident (which cuts to his credibility) as well as any testimony regarding the general environment of the sector of the border which they were guarding.
Just as you don’t find Ramos and Compean’s testimony credible, neither do I find it credible that a multiple-offending drug smuggler would transport drugs without carrying a weapon to defend himself. I’m not buying that either, but considering the straightjacket the judge imposed on the defense, I can see how the jury would buy that.
With the facts that we have available to us now, it becomes a simple question of the word of a professional drug smuggler vs. the word of a couple of border patrol agents. And since the latter was entitled the presumption of innocence, they are the ones to whom I will give the benefit of doubt.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/23/2007 @ 11:13 amThe jury heard over and over and over that Aldrete was smuggling drugs. From the transcript, all the evidence that existed [from an unknown source – we don’t even know if it was a law enforcement report] about an October incident is that Aldrete was observed at a “known stash house”. That’s it.
As far as the certainty I can muster, I’m convinced that whatever the motive for shooting – especially with regard to Compean – it was NOT because they believed Aldrete was armed and that they were in danger. There is just no way in the world that anyone would turn their backs on someone they just seconds ago believed was shooting at them/about to shoot at them and then just amble away. No way.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 11:27 amThey heard of one incident only – and in the closing, the prosecution portrayed him as some poor, starving sap who was doing it to feed his family.
The second incident is discussed in the transcript, Vol. VII, around pages 226 and 227. Stillinger notes that he’s been implicated in the second incident, and Kanof says he will take the 5th if asked about it. But the judge never let it in, so the point became moot from the prosecution’s perspective.
Note that a similar set of circumstances was ruled as grounds for overturning the conviction in the Sipe case that Jerri Lynn had dicussed on her site.
As far as your second paragraph, once Ramos came on the scene and fired, the smuggler was outnumbered and continued his escape. At that point, having not seen any additional signs of danger, it doesn’t strech credibility at all to believe they let their guard down – certainly not, IMO, as much as it stretches credibility to believe that a repeat drug smuggler transports drugs unarmed.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/23/2007 @ 11:48 amTracy,
I’m not sure who said this but earlier in the comments it was suggested that Ramos and Compean had not been involved in any/many shooting incidents before this. If so, what makes you believe they had the presence of mind to talk about the details of the shoot at the time? Wouldn’t they be almost as likely as one of us to be in shock and need some time to process what happened and talk about it?
How do you know Ramos and Compean just “ambled away” after the incident? Isn’t it just as plausible that Aldrete-Davila was finally so far away that it was clear to Ramos and Compean that the threat was over?
I am a strong believer in the jury system, both from experience as an attorney who has tried jury cases and as a juror in civil and criminal trials in West Texas. However, I know from personal experience that more and more West Texans have divided loyalties between the US and Mexico. I suppose that’s really why I’m even looking at this case – if it had happened elsewhere, I probably would have accepted the jury’s verdict at face value.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 12:03 pm“They heard of one incident only – and in the closing, the prosecution portrayed him as some poor, starving sap who was doing it to feed his family.”
As thirteen28 says, this is exactly how Guevara was portrayed in the Sipe case. The trial judge obviously didn’t like that. He granted a new trial based, in part, on the withholding of that evidence–as well as withheld evidence demonstrating that Guevara was the coyote of the group of illegals who were detained with him when the incident happened.
One distinction that can be made , however, is that, apparently, Guevara kept changing his testimony more favorably for the prosecution as the benefits to him became sweeter.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/23/2007 @ 12:13 pmI call people nitwits and idiots based on their comments. J Curtis is an agitator — he’s not interested in the truth. He doesn’t care what the transcripts say. He doesn’t care what the jury saw and heard.
He’s got a view that the prosecution should never have been brought, and everyone involved is corrupt or part of some grand conspiracy to keep border patrol agents from defending the border.
He’s an idiot and a nitwit, and you don’t have to be a lawyer to know that.
I’m a supporter of the First Amendment because “Free speech makes the idiots easier to spot.”
He came to this forum and offered his opinions. He can defend them and his view. The world is sometimes a difficult place to live. No one ever said otherwise.
wls (077d0d) — 2/23/2007 @ 1:30 pmWLS: I’m a supporter of the First Amendment because “Free speech makes the idiots easier to spot.”
I agree, WLS, but what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 1:47 pmHe (along with Jerri Lynn and even some others like Tracy or Laguna Dave who are on the other side of the debate) has done a helluva lot better arguing his positions and sticking to the facts of the case than you have with your “I’m a high and mighty federal prosecutor who knows all and therefore you must bow to my superior knowledge” form of “argument”.
thirteen28 (5ad670) — 2/23/2007 @ 1:53 pmDRJ — have you read any comment from me complaining about someone’s response to the comments I have posted here?
I’ve commented on the your summary of the transcripts, tried to correct some issues where I think you have gotten them wrong, and tried to put some of the proceedings in context since I have crossed paths with many of these issues many times — like the failure to disclose some document that the agency had failed to turn over to the prosecutor.
Some of the defense lawyers here have taken issue with my views — like the question of whether C.Sanchez’s report constitutes Brady material or not. I’ve stated and defended my position, and I respect their’s.
But I refuse to suffer fools like J Curtis.
And, I didn’t identify who I was until late last night. I only did that after a couple other posters questioned my veracity. Now they have context for my comments. Some may think it makes me less trustworthy, some may think more, and others may not care.
I don’t care.
But, if you’re popping off here and its clear from your comments that you don’t understand what took place in the trial, expect to be criticized. And if you can’t take criticism, you should not play on the internet.
wls (077d0d) — 2/23/2007 @ 3:41 pmWLS,
That was my point. If you can’t take criticism, don’t play.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 3:55 pmWLS,
Since you raised the document production issue – and I assume you are referring to the Karhoff memo – I’m interested in what you think about the actions of the prosecutor in that regard. Is it common for a prosecutor to represent to the Court that a document would be produced without need for an order, a representation that defense counsel probably relied on, and then refuse to produce the document the next day? The government was ready to argue why the document should be produced. Do you think defense counsel was equally ready to argue the matter?
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 3:59 pmCorrection: The government was ready to argue why the document should not be produced.’=
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:02 pmThese are guys who rarely – if ever – fire their weapons.
That they’d be so “in shock” that they were stunned into silence is contrary to evidence that that states that the agents were “excited” and “happy”. No one describes them as “in shock”.
It’s not like they saw the twin towers fall. Like I said, it’s more reasonable that if they really thought they were about to be fired on and had to fire, they’d be more likely to “process” that with their fellow agents. “Holy crap, you should have seen what just happened!” is the more plausible reaction. Not stunned silence. And certainly not nonchalance. You’re not talking about Jack Bauer here who can be blase about shooting because he takes out a dozen or so folks in a day.
As for testimony that they walked back, so far we have two fellow BP witnesses who see them coming back at a walking pace which is consistent with Aldrete who says that they walked away.
Tracy (c0bcd4) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:09 pmthirteen28 — ok, you want argument based on experience? How about this?
You comment about the failure of the judge to allow testimony about A-D second incident simply reveals an ignorance about the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Fact: At the time of trial A-D had not been convicted of any crime involving the second incident. He hadn’t even been charged.
Law: Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a): For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness (1) evidence that a witness … HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME shall be admitted subject to Rule 403 if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year…
Federal Rule of Evidence 608: (a) The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness ….
(b) SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ character for truthfulness, other than CONVICTION OF A CRIME as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrisic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, IF PROBATIVE OF TRUTHFULNESS OR UNTRUTHFULNESS, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness’ character for truthfulness or untruthfulness ….
So, the second incident would have to be probative on the question of A-D character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. What’s your argument that it is? Does the fact that he was caught driving a second load in Oct make him a liar? Or does it make him a drug trafficker? If the latter, its not admissible until he’s convicted of a crime. Explain how it makes him a liar?
And, there’s a corrolary to this rule in the case law which says that becuase its a collateral matter — whether A-D was driving a second load in Oct. 2005 has nothing to do with whether the agents committed crimes in Feb. 2005 — the questioner would be “stuck with the answer.” In other words, if A-D denied being a driver of the second load, the defense lawyer would not be allowed to bring in another witness to say “A-D was the driver of the second load”. That’s called collateral impeachment with extrinsic evidence, and its not allowed.
The reason its not allowed is because the trial at that point would head off on a tangent unrelated to the charges in the indictment. Now the prosecutor would call witnesses to show that “A-D” was visiting his sick grandmother the day the second load came across, and the person caught on camera is really his cousin who is often mistaken as his brother because they look so much alike ….. blah, blah, blah.
So, there’s your lesson on evidence for today.
The judge had the discretion to keep out the evidence of “A-D’s” involvment in the second load, and it has no relevance to the question of whether A-D is a liar or not.
Since he’s not been convicted of any crime, the episode isn’t a basis to impeach his credibility.
wls (077d0d) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:10 pmWLS,
I want to be clear: I’m glad you are commenting. Your contributions have been helpful, worthwhile, and appreciated. But I don’t see why you feel the need to treat J Curtis like a troll. Sometimes people just can’t reach a consensus and have to agree to disagree.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:10 pmWLS,
I’m not sure that we are making appellate court arguments here. It’s more like a jury deliberation, if that, but bringing in our own experiences. And biases.
I agree that this was not a “crap case” for the prosecution. After a defendant’s “confession” such as we saw in an earlier thread, I cannot fault any prosecutor for pursuing such a case — he would be more at fault if he did not pursue it. I also agree that the dissenting jurors are not likely to be allowed to impeach the verdict.
Still, I would have come to a different verdict if I had been on the jury for the reasons I stated in my #91.
nk (79f144) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:11 pmDRJ
I haven’t read the transcript on that episode, but from your summary, I took it to be that the prosecutor initially said if its subject to discovery — i.e., covered by Rule 16 or Jencks/Brady/Giglio — then she would produce it.
I don’t know if she had it in front of her at the time — whether she knew its contents or not.
After reading it, and hearing from BP on their view of whether they wanted it held back if possible, she simply stated for the record that she didn’t think it was subject to Jencks because the author wasn’t going to testify. If its content didn’t include any exculpatory information, its not covered by Brady/Giglio. The only basis for discovery at that point would have been Rule 16.
There isn’t “open file” discovery in federal criminal procedure as there is in many states. With respect to documents and reports, the government must produce 3 categories of items:
1. items material to preparing a defense
2. items the government intends to introduce in its case-in-chief
3. items obtained from or belonging to the defendant.
The first item tends to be very broadly interpreted by judges in the heat of trial — if the prosecutor has failed to turn over a particular document, and that document surfaces during trial, most judges are going to err on the side of caution and order it disclosed. I think that’s what happened here. I haven’t read the Karnoff (?) report — I think it had something to do with the Ariz. BP agent whose mother got the call, etc., and got the whole IG matter started.
A judge “protecting her record” for purposes of appeal is going to force the gov’t to turn over just about anything that pops up late.
wls (077d0d) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:17 pmOk — let me say this about J Curtis.
I’ll withdraw my earlier remark, and I’ll take some time today and tonight to scroll back through his various posts and see if I just jumped to an unwarranted conclusion based on his comments of which No. 68 above seemed to me to be representative:
————-
A shotgun butt to the face is what
A. A greeting
B. A beating
Comment by EricPWJohnson
C. Not nearly enough force.
Your beloved felon wouldn’t surrender and was attempting to escape from the US.
Comment by J Curtis — 2/22/2007 @ 1:07 pm
———–
To me that’s not constructive commentary in response to the thoughtful and informed post of another. So I jumped him for it, and I think it was deserved.
But I’ll look back through some of his other comments to see if this one was out of character or not.
wls (077d0d) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:26 pmWls,
You said: “So, the second incident would have to be probative on the question of A-D character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”
In the Sipe case, the fact that Guevara was given a “get out of jail free” card for HIS second offense was viewed as a benefit for his testimony that the defense should have been apprised of and allowed to use. Also, the trial court apparently expressed concern about the fact that Guevara was portrayed as a regular illegal crossing the border. These appeared to be two reasons underlying the granting of a Motion for New Trial.
I agree with you that the second incident can’t be used to impeach credibility. Also, I’m not sure that an Appellate Court would see its exclusion as reversible error because of all the testimony about other benefits–and the fact that Guevara’s testimony changed with the additions of benefits.
That said, it really bothers me that the prosecution was allowed to misportray this guy as a naif in the drug smuggling business. It’s close to lying to the jury, in my opinion.
Do you think that there is any argument to be made that the prosecution opened the door to this information because of the way that the prosecution portrayed OAD?
I could see an argument to be made to the jury that it’s reasonable to expect a guy like this to carry a weapon. I know that’s not necessarily relevant–but the prosecution did spend a lot of time claiming that he never had a gun. Combining that with the false, in my opinion, portrayal of OAD as a good son getting money for his sick mama, totally mischaracterized the kind of person the BP agents were involved with. It just seems inherently unfair to me.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:33 pm105
DRJ, I don’t see what “divided loyalties” have to do with this case. The victim, accused and many of the jurors all have hispanic names. Three of the jurors had connections to people in the law enforcement (in two cases the border patrol). So why do you expect a bias against the accused?
The defendants were entitled to an impartial jury not a jury full of people who think shooting a Mexican shouldn’t be a big deal.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:45 pmWLS,
Before you start your review, consider this: Either you believe J Curtis is a fool and an idiot or you’re frustrated with J Curtis because s/he doesn’t understand the legal issues you see in this case. If the first option is true, why are you bothering to debate him/her? If it’s the second option, make your point as clearly as possible. Even if you don’t convince J Curtis, you will undoubtedly make your point clear with others. Isn’t that enough?
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:48 pmJerri — but you’re back in an area where there is no admissible evidence. I’d have to read the transcript to see exactly what the prosecutor said about OAD. Frankly, the BP advocates have so mischaracterized things that happened in trial I won’t take any characterization of such comments at face value.
But, even if that were true, the issue raised by the pros. is what motivated OAD in Feb. 2005, not what motivated him in Oct. 2005. Does that fact that he was caught in Oct. 2005 make it any more/less likely that Feb 2005 was not, in fact, his first effort a driving a load van across the border?
As I understand it – and I think I read this in the OIG report – the BP was able to verify is employment history in Mexico, and by all objective indicators he had not been involved previously in drug trafficking. A subesequent bad act doesn’t advance the defense’s cause to show that the prosecutor was mischaracterizing his history, except by rank speculation.
The difference in the Sipes case is the suspect there was given a benefit. He went from being held on a material witness warrant — which kept him in jail and not deported — to being paroled into the US to assist in the investigation. That’s clearly a benefit.
OAD was simply not charged with anything, but I don’t think the record was clear then, or even now, if the decision to not charge him had anything to do with his status as a witness — in other words, was a decision to not charge based on a normal prosecutorial exercise of discretion based on the evidence, or was it a benefit extended in exchange for his cooperation in the trial. If it was a normal exercise of prosecutorial discretion, then its not a “benefit” exchanged for his testimony which would be subject to CX for bias.
wls (077d0d) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:48 pmJames B. Shearer,
I think there is a division among people on the border between those who believe the border laws should be enforced and those who don’t.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:50 pm104 120
Regarding transporting drugs unarmed, in vol 10 258-261 there was testimony that between January 2004 and March 2005 there had been 155 seizures totalling 43703 pounds of marijuana in Fabens sector (24 miles of river frontage). The prosecutor claimed there had been only one gun seizure in some unspecified number of years in Fabens sector. So I don’t see much evidence that OAD was bound to be carrying a gun.
Furthermore if Ramos and Compean thought OAD was carrying a gun why didn’t they call out an evidence team to search for the gun near where OAD fell after being shot?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 4:57 pm124
So you think the jury was likely to sympathize more with Mexican drug smugglers than American border patrol agents?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 5:01 pmNot in the evidence at the trial, but in the pre-trial discussion of “in limine” motions (whatever those are), I believe Kanof told the judge and defense counsel that the government’s research showed there had been no smuggling incidents involving shooting or weapons in that county during the last five years (as far back as she checked).
And if the BP Rules of Engagement are as we are told in the testimony, this isn’t so surprising. Basically, the BP will not fire at you if you don’t threaten them with deadly force first. So if you are in danger of being caught, you do what OAD did and just run away.
The dealers themselves are presumably safe in Mexico, but shooting a federal agent would probably force the Mexican authorities to do something.
The profit margins involved in the drug trade are so large that I imagine the occasional seizure is just chalked up to “the cost of doing business”. If seizing one load was a big enough setback for the dealers to worry about, the War on Drugs would have ended in victory a long time ago…
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 5:02 pmCorrection to previous, here is what Kanof actually said – no guns in the last year, very few in the last five years, and marijuana smugglers are basically never found with guns.
The only shooting incident of any kind in that sector during the previous year involved an agent shooting at illegals who were throwing rocks at him.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 5:15 pmJames B. Shearer,
No, not when you put it that way, and that’s why it was important to the defense to be able to show whether Aldrete-Davila was an unwitting dupe, a desperate 1-time smuggler, or something more. I know there are West Texans who view Border Patrol agents unsympathetically because they view them as the enforcers of heartless immigration laws.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 5:59 pmDRJ — what difference does it make if A-D was an unwitting dupe, a 1-time smuggler, or something more? The agents didn’t know anything about him except that he was running from them.
Compean testified that he had something shiny in his hand.
A-D said he didn’t. The other agent at the scene — not Ramos — said he didn’t. A cell phone was found still plugged into the van.
The jury heard the Compean and Ramos’ story — as well as Compean’s voluntary written statement — and THEY DIDN’T BELIEVE THE STORY.
Assume that A-D had done this 100 times before.
How does that get Compean and Ramos off the hook for shooting a guy they knew nothing about and who didn’t pose a threat to them or others warranting the use of deadly force?
wls (077d0d) — 2/23/2007 @ 6:37 pmSome innocent guy desperately needs money to pay his mother’s medical bills and agrees to do a one time drug drop-off for the drug cartel.
An hour later he has a bullet in his ass and is limping back to the cartel to tell him that he just lost a million dollars worth of their dope.
After that nightmarish maiden voyage, Davila is ready to get back in the saddle a few months later and the drug cartel is willing to entrust him with another million dollar load.
Wouldn’t Davila’s expectation be that if he was busted after everything that has been going on the previous few months that the US would send him away for an eternity?
Where would an innocent one time only mule get the balls to take such a new risk?
It makes it totally implausible that the feb load was his first. No reasonable jury would believe it was after hearing about incident two.
The scoundrels might try to play the “He had to deliver the load because the cartel would kill his family if he refused” card, which would be illogical because the cartel doesn’t put the load at any less risk with that kind of threat and I can’t imagine there’s any shortage of willing mules with a batting average better than Davila’s .000 under the first timer scenario.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/23/2007 @ 6:50 pmwls
Thank you for the substantive argument. On points of law, I am certain you are more well versed than me. But I still have a serious problem with this line of thinking, for reasons Jerri expressed eloquently in her response to you:
Because of the restrictions placed on the defense, the prosecution was allowed to misportray A-D as a hapless victim (go check out what they said about him in closing arguments) instead of the criminal that he is, and that steps way over the line of what is ethical in my opinion. Given the amount of power vested in a federal prosecutor, a sense of fairness is crticial to prevent abuses, but these prosecutors only seemed to care about getting scalps, and such, Ramos and Compean were portrayed as bloodthirsty criminals while A-D was just a poor little victim. If the law allows such a thing, then the law is an ass.
As far as the value of the testimony of Davila on a second point? If he takes the 5th, it provides an indication to the jury that his immunity agreement doesn’t cover the second incident – but it does put his smuggling career in a different light. If he answers openly and honestly, it indicates that his immunity deal is extensive.
Since you think a jury verdict is sarcosanct, why not put that information out there an let the jury draw their own conclusions as to how it affects his credibility? What are you afraid of?
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/23/2007 @ 7:21 pmWLS,
I think we are overlapping two separate discussions. I was responding to James B. Shearer and the topic was essentially how an El Paso jury might differ from juries in other locations. My point was that some El Pasoans might be more sympathetic to a illegal immigrant drug smuggler, provided the smuggler was either an unwitting dupe or a one-time offender.
It might be the equivalent of one of your juries being more sympathetic with and willing to believe a suspected gang member who was caught robbing a convenience store than with the police officer who arrested him, provided the suspected gang member came from a bad neighborhood and had never been caught doing something like that before. I hope we can agree that both those situations would be a problem for the justice system and for maintaining law and order.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 7:26 pmLaguna Dave:
I don’t doubt you are correct about that aspect of it, as I’m sure the cartels would expect to lose loads once in a while. Indeed, the price of drugs reflects the risk premium in getting them to the buyer.
Nevertheless, the smugglers themselves still have to worry about their own safety and security against attempted heists by others from rival cartels, who would probably not hesitate to kill another smuggler in seizing a load from the competition. These are organized criminals we are talking about, so law enforcement is not the only threat a smuggler faces, nor is necessarily the most dire. I would argue that other cartels and assorted criminals would be the biggest threat to a smuggler in A-D’s situation.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/23/2007 @ 7:27 pmIsn’t it weird how no matter how many times you proofread or spellcheck, you only see errors after you’ve posted?
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 7:27 pm133
It is also a problem for the justice system and maintaining law and order when cops think they can get away with abusing criminals. In my view the justice system cannot tolerate cops who shoot people and don’t report it.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:13 pm131
How are you computing a million dollar value for the load? I think $100 a pound and a value of a bit under $100000 would be a better estimate but I am not exactly an authority on Mexican marijuana prices.
Since there was testimony that the drivers of intercepted loads usually tried to make it back to Mexico losing a load could not be all that serious.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:19 pmI agree.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:21 pmMy 138 was agreeing with your 136. You’re fast.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:23 pmThat wouldn’t surprise me on the Mexican side. But I suspect they are at little risk from other criminals in the United States. The exception would be the person who is receiving the load, but it’s not clear whether the payment is exchanged at the same time – I’d guess probably not, and then the mule is just there to give the pick-up guy the herb anyway, and nobody needs weapons. I tend to doubt that OAD was going to carry $500K (that was the street value I saw quoted for the load) back to Mexico that day.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:40 pmI would be careful about asssuming that they don’t need a weapon on this side of the border. There are other criminals out there that prey on illegals all the time, on the U.S. side of the border to boot. It’s not much of a stretch to think they would do the same to a lone drug smuggler with a full load.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:51 pmThat was argued. At one point it was argued that Aldrete “absolutely had a gun”.
I couldn’t find anything in the transcript that talked about Aldrete’s mother being sick. I don’t think that was ever considered by the jury.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 8:59 pmI haven’t seen that particular portrayal either, but do read what the prosecution said about people like A-D in the closing arguments, i.e. “they do it to feed their families”.
“Feeding your family” is not a legitimate reason for smuggling hundreds of pounds of contraband into another country. And it’s disingenuous and disgusting for the prosecution to portray A-D in such a light.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:03 pmI heard the number bandied about. I don’t know what the stuff goes for today but back in the days when I smoked the shit it was $25 a quarter ounce. So,…100 an ounce, 16 ounces in a lb. Nah, I think million is reasonable unless the marijuana market went to hell in the last 20 or so years.
As for the intercepted loads, you had to be trying hard to miss the point.
Davila wasn’t your everyday drug smuggler, the government would have us believe. He was little red riding hood carrying a basket to gramma’s house…and guess who came along to spoil his little walk thru the woods?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:05 pmWell, we have Kanof’s statements and the testimony. Apparently finding guns with pot smugglers is virtually unheard of. That is the essential point, and from their years of experience with the BP, Ramos and Compean would presumably have had some knowledge of that pattern of behavior.
If OAD hadn’t been observed by the BP, he would have met his contact within 5 minutes of picking up the van, so there is not much of a window for him to run into rival gangs.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:07 pmTracy,
Mary Stillinger did mention that Aldrete-Davila told C. Sanchez “the story about he’s a little mule, and he needed money for his mother’s doctor bills, and he needed money to renew his commercial driver’s license.” (Vol 7, p 32) I agree it wasn’t in the jury’s presence but that may be where this comes from.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:09 pmAt this point we should just agree to disagree. I don’t put much weight in Kanof’s statements since her interest was clear in getting a conviction, and further, you have statements by A-D’s family (not in the record, but made nonetheless) that he always carried a weapon when smuggling drugs.
I simply don’t believe it’s unreasonable to think smugglers like A-D would be armed, nor do I think it’s unreasonable for the agents to assume smugglers would carry weapons, even if Kanof’s statements were absolute truth. Even if it was true in 99% of the cases, an agent only has to be wrong once to lose his life, and I’d bet that weighs heavily on their minds every time they get into an encounter like this.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:15 pmIf Ms. Kanof thinks drug smugglers are always unarmed, maybe she should talk to some Texas sheriffs:
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:26 pm144
You do know the difference between wholesale and retail don’t you? Markups are particularly large for illegal goods to compensate for the risk.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:26 pmMother’s medical bills:
vol 7 32-15.
14 But he told them the story about he’s a little mule,
15 and he needed money for his mother’s doctor bills, and he
16 needed money to renew his commercial driver’s license. He
Probably was a constant theme on the Spanish radio and tv stations that this jury had been following for a year.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:27 pmEven the DEA, a branch of the US government that Ms. Kanof represents, recognizes how serious the drug trafficking problem is in West Texas:
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:34 pmDRJ, what’s your point? There was testimony at the trial that there were 155 seizures of marijuana totalling 43703 pounds in 15 months in the Fabens area.
Obviously there is a lot of stuff moving across the border and the border patrol does not have adequate resources to stop most of it. What does that have to do with the issues in this trial?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:49 pm149
The people who sell drugs are otherwise unemployable dope smokers, most on welfare, who are happy to sell it for some free smoke.
Look at the risk the mule takes and he only earns a fraction of one percent, paid by the wholesaler. I doubt that the next risk taker in the process is earning 1000%.
Why wouldn’t the cartels just have more low paid mule types moving it to the users on the street for a similar cut like the first mule got?
Don’t they usually report drug busts in street value anyway? You expect a wholesale price report from me? Those numbers might be out there somewhere but I don’t think you’ll find the numbers you’re expecting. I’d guess 100% markup tops.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/23/2007 @ 9:55 pmAnd today it’s been announced, according to WND, that we will be opening the floodgates for the Mexican truckers to come through.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:00 pmObjection your honor, relevance. (I think I’m getting the hang of this…)
Nobody is denying that a significant quantity of drugs is smuggled. The question is whether, in period prior to the incident, they were ever armed. The answer, unless the government was lying about a matter of public record, was no.
It also isn’t inconceivable that the Compean/Ramos/OAD incident changed the Rules of Engagement, as far as the drug lords are concerned.
I’m not defending the smugglers, but if the BP starts shooting them, their only choices are to give up (not going to happen, obviously) or arm themselves.
It seems clear that the smugglers described by the Hudspeth County sheriff bear little resemblance to OAD’s low-budget operation.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:04 pmIf you are going to sell drugs on the street in the US, you need to live in the US, and have contacts with the people who buy. It helps to speak English, too, which OAD others like him do not. I would guess that OAD was meeting a US citizen or resident.
The load that OAD was driving could have been headed to New England, for all we know. As the other quotation noted, that area is popular for smugglers because there is a major Interstate freeway within spitting distance of the border.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:10 pmthirteen28
WLS (5c4702) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:11 pmthirteen28
Sorry about that.
A witness is never put on the stand and forced to take the fifth amendment in front of a jury — and the reason is to prevent exactly what it is you want to happen.
Taking the Fifth is supposed to signify nothing. The law and constitution prevent it from being used as a tacit admission of guilt.
Everyone — guilty and innocent — have a constitutional right to not be compelling to contribute to a criminal case against themselves.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:15 pmMy point was that, even if the federal government believes smugglers are usually unarmed, Texas sheriffs are concerned that drug smugglers are armed (my comment 148) and drug smuggling is a widespread problem in Texas (my comment 151). I intended comments 148 and 151 to appear consecutively but so many people are commenting that they were posted several comments apart and it was hard to see the relationship.
I do not think this is an excuse to have open season on drug smugglers. I was responding to the fact that Debra Kanof apparently believes, or at least she’s willing to represent to the Court, that drug smugglers are usually unarmed. It’s my recollection that her representation to the Court was based on Border Patrol records. Given the Border Patrol’s policy that their agents can rarely if ever engage in pursuits, it doesn’t surprise me that they rarely encounter armed smugglers.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:17 pmNo one is saying that drug trafficking is good. No one is saying that smugglers are saints. No one is giving Aldrete merit badges. Quite the opposite.
The point is that you can’t just shoot someone you reasonably believe – or even know – to be a smuggler in the back.
Or in the front.
You just can’t shoot them.
It’s against the law.
Period.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:21 pmTracy,
I take it you don’t believe the defense, as you have every right to do and as did the jury. I’m not to the point yet but I may get there.
DRJ (605076) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:26 pmwls – wasn’t Mark Fuhrman forced to do just that in the OJ trial? And wasn’t it done for the purpose of probing his credibility?
I agree that it is not supposed to signify anything one way or another, but I cannot imagine any attorney wanting one of their side’s witnesses to take the 5th on the stand, ever.
[I believe Furhman took the Fifth outside the jury’s presence, as is customary. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a link. — P]
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:27 pmDRJ –
For all the reasons I’ve stated today – and more – I don’t believe the defense. You’re right.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:46 pmJ Curtis, the wholesale price in Mexico is the amount the cartel actually lost when the load was seized and would determine how upset they were likely to be. Since there were 155 seizures totalling 43703 pounds in 15 months in the Fabens sector I would not expect the cartel to be overly upset. Also from the cartel point of view it might look like the border patrol was tipped off in which case they would have no reason to be mad at OAD.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/23/2007 @ 10:47 pmI never said they were mad at him. I just don’t know why they would have been so thrilled with the outcome of his only ever mule attempt that they would want to entrust him with another million dollar load.
And I don’t know why Davila would be so thrilled with the outcome of his only ever ( and totally innocent ) mule attempt that he and his newly acquired piss tube would want to go on another dangerous adventure.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/23/2007 @ 11:04 pmI’ve never seen a witness be forced to take the Fifth in front of a jury, and I’ve never heard of it. Its so inherently prejudicial, and the fact that the witness takes the Fifth is not evidence of anything so its irrelevant to the issues before the jury.
I also think Furman took the Fifth outside the presence of the jury. THe judge does that so he/she knows, on the record and under oath that the witness is going to assert his rights. THe judge then has to decide whether the witness will be allowed to testify at all because of the inability of either side to cross-examine the witness on the subject matter where the Fifth has been invoked.
In some instances it would be reversible error for a judge to knowingly require a witness to assert his rights before the jury.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/24/2007 @ 2:21 amTrue and correct. However, it comes into direct conflict with the right of confrontation when a witness testifies and then asserts the Fifth on cross-examination. Aggravated by a partial grant of immunity which the government refuses to extend to the questions which might hurt its case. If the defense makes an offer of proof which estblishes its proposed cross-examination as competent and the witness still insists on the Fifth, his entire testimony should be stricken.
nk (79f144) — 2/24/2007 @ 5:20 am“I’ve never seen a witness be forced to take the Fifth in front of a jury, and I’ve never heard of it. Its so inherently prejudicial, and the fact that the witness takes the Fifth is not evidence of anything so its irrelevant to the issues before the jury.”
WLS,
During the 1980’s- or early ’90’s, I attended a civil trial seminar. One of the speakers was a famous plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer (I’m blanking on his name even though I’ve talked to him in the last year–aaak!) gave a presentation about some of his airplane litigation.
He showed video of airline executives being cross-examined and taking the 5th in response to every question. It was powerful.
Wls, I understand what you are saying about probative value, but is it possible that the fact OAD was the alleged victim and accuser could be a distinguishing factor?
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:19 am“… but is it possible that the fact OAD was the alleged victim and accuser could be a distinguishing factor?”
Absolutely. The onus is on the party who put on the witness, not on the party cross-examining him. There is no bad faith in asking a question at cross-examination if the question is relevant and material even if you know that the witness is put into the dilemma of incriminating himself. There is bad faith in calling a witness knowing that he will plead the Fifth.
nk (79f144) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:14 amIt would be helpful to have more information about the October 2005 incident. Like I’ve said before – all I’ve seen from the transcripts is that Aldrete is observed at a known stash house. It’s not apparent from the transcript who saw him there and what the circumstances were. Did the information come from a snitch? From a stake out? From a defense investigator? What happened there? We don’t know any of that and none of the attorneys makes a record about it. The judge drops a hint that she’d like to hear more, but it is pretty much ignored. I’d like to think that the defense attorneys were on the ball enough to fill her in on the details if it would have helped their clients by encouraging the judge to make a ruling favorable to them.
I would, of course, make the argument that he should be crossed on that if I were defending these agents or that the Aldrete testimony be striken. But I can also understand the court’s ruling. Aldrete does not deny that he was smuggling drugs. So there’s no direct impeachment issue. Does drug smuggling suggest a propensity to lie? I’d say yes, but the judge is never told that’s what Aldrete is doing in October – she’s only told that some unknown person observed him at a safe house. And the fact that he was a smuggler is not an affirmative defense. As has been repeated here over and over – it is not lawful to shoot a fleeing felon. That prohibition does not disappear because someone’s a repeat offender.
There’s also the question of why the defense didn’t attempt to get the October incident into evidence through other means. I don’t see a motion excluding it. [Which doesn’t mean it’s not there – they may have made the motion but it’s unclear from the transcripts. Or I may simply have missed it.] If the evidence was so damning to the prosecution’s case, why couldn’t/didn’t they call the person who “observed” Aldrete as their own witness? Did they even make that effort? If not, why not?
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:14 amThey tried to subpoena two DEA agents on this matter and it was quashed by the government and the judge.
There are some very strange circumstances surrounding the incident and a few interesting things can be inferred. From WND:
They obviously had reason to believe that a drug drop was made there the day before but they chose not to make the bust while it was in progress and allowed the “mule” to slip away.
They were either tailing Davila or planted a gps receiver on him, maybe in the border pass that they gave him.
I’ll wager that “Cipriano Ernesto Ortiz-Hernandez” wasn’t arrested and they will argue that he was as innocent as a newborn babe and had no idea that any crime was being committed. They need to protect this guy so that they can continue to protect Davila.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/24/2007 @ 10:07 amJ Curtis — clairvoyant.
You missed your calling.
Who was the Zodiac Killer?
Who was the second shooter behind the grassy knoll?
Where is Osama sleeping tonight?
You’re the man with all the answers. Please tell us.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/25/2007 @ 2:58 amFixing open blockquote.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/25/2007 @ 2:01 pmWLS,
I’m curious about your willingness to mock J Curtis as you did in comment 172. If you believe he is wrong, why don’t you – as a lawyer and prosecutor – keep trying to patiently explain the legal principles you believe he’s missing? After all, it took you 3 years of law school and perhaps a few years of practice to fully grasp these issues.
More important, I empathize with commenters who are concerned about jailing law enforcement officers for making a mistake. I certainly wouldn’t choose a profession that imposes a zero tolerance policy and jails me when I make a mistake, and I don’t know anyone who would. Furthermore, I have a special concern for cases like this because we expect and demand that law enforcement officers deal with difficult situations. The average citizen can stand idle or walk away but law enforcement officers can’t.
Of course, it’s different if we know the officers intentionally acted in a wrongful manner. It’s clear you are convinced these officers acted intentionally but why is it so hard to accept that not everyone has come to that conclusion?
My comments are confrontational but I don’t mean them in a disrespectful way. On the contrary, as a lawyer and prosecutor, I know you have the ability to review what I’ve said and respond thoughtfully. I hope you will.
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 2:51 pmI did find where the jury is informed that Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez was a potential witness in the case.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 3:28 pmWLS,
I don’t know the answers to your questions about Zodiac killers and whatnot but since I read you’re a prosecutor, let me ask you:
Does it seem odd that the prosecutors in this trial, and the government in all of its documents concerning this case, never once directly refers to the dope smuggler’s age?
Yet when they have the doctor on the witness stand they use him to establish age anatomically. Is this normal for the prosecution?
Would it be off-base for me to infer from this that the government is not 100% comfortable with the smuggler’s identification?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/25/2007 @ 3:45 pm152
DRJ, The officers intentionally failed to report the shooting and then in my opinion intentionally lied under oath. Looks like intentional wrongdoing to me.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/25/2007 @ 3:55 pmJames B. Shearer,
As you state, it’s “in your opinion” and you may be right. I may end up at the same place you are. My point is that it’s still just opinion. Anytime we’re talking about opinion, it’s possible that reasonable people can disagree.
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 4:12 pmDRJ – You really do have the perfect temperment for a mediator.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:01 pmOAD’s Mexican driver’s license (which he obtained long before the incident) was, I believe, entered into evidence. The only reason we don’t know his age is because nobody verbally said it in the transcripts.
I don’t see why you’d make that leap. I’d infer that OAD’s age isn’t mentioned verbally because it isn’t relevant to any of the issues the jury had to decide. If they had asked him his age, he presumably would have given the age corresponding to the date of birth on his drivers license, which was in evidence. What, then, would we know that wasn’t already known?
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:23 pmTracy,
Maybe an online mediator but I could say the same for you. Anyway, in real life, my teenagers would surely object.
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:53 pmWhy was it relevant for the jury to hear an anatomical estimation of the smuggler’s age?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:06 pmThis (from the same witness) is why:
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:33 pmEven when there was medical relevancy for the jury to know the smuggler’s age, the prosecutors manage to establish the age without stipulating to it.
Maybe it’s just a coincidence that they never got around to stipulating an age for the smuggler but it’s not uncommon for people like Davila to have aliases.
For instance, I would imagine that a 21 year old drug smuggler who can present identification showing he’s a 15 year old Mexican National would likely just be chauffeured back across the border. It would be foolish for the smuggler NOT to have such a “get out of jail free” card.
That’s just an example but if the prosecutors had learned of such a thing, it could perjure or incriminate their smuggler to stipulate an age.
I’m “just saying”. Not accusing.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:52 pmActually, the doctor didn’t testify to OAD’s age, he testified to what OAD told him his age was, and indicated that he would base his medical judgements on that information.
But OAD’s Mexican driver’s license was entered into evidence without objection, so the question seems pretty irrelevant. Anybody who wanted to know or establish his actual age for the record could have referred to that.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/26/2007 @ 12:31 amThe point is that the government has never stipulated an age or had the smuggler do it during the trial or before the trial.
The defense could have made the smuggler stipulate an age for the record but they didn’t. Stillinger did ask him if he had represented himself as someone else before and then asked specifically about the brother’s name.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/26/2007 @ 7:23 am