DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts – David Jacquez (Volume X)
Volume X of the transcript begins on Monday morning of the second week of trial. The second witness called on Monday morning was Border Patrol agent David Jacquez:
From Transcript X:
Government direct examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):
63-64 – David Jacquez is employed as a BP agent. As of the time of the trial, he had been employed as an agent for 3 years. He is currently on administrative duties. He is testifying pursuant to an immunity agreement.
64 – Jacquez has given 2 statements to C. Sanchez about this incident. The statements were different. In the first statement, Jacquez omitted that Compean told him about the shooting.
64-65 – Jacquez identified Compean and Ramos in the courtroom.
65 – Jacquez did not mention what Compean told him in the first statement because he did not want to be associated with the shooting.
65-66 – Compean was Jacquez’s field training office (FTO) when Jacquez first “got there.” Compean taught Jacquez how to be a BP agent – how to process, arrest, and catch aliens – but Jacquez did not have an allegiance to Compean.
66-67 – On February 17, 2005, Jacquez was on the east end of the Fabens port of entry. Jacquez tentatively identified the Fabens port of entry on GOV EXH 27. He was located east of that point. Farm road 1109 is across from the Fabens port of entry building. Jacquez also identified the Rio Grande on GOV EXH 27.
68-69 – On February 17, 2005, Jacquez heard Compean call over the radio that he had a van leaving the 76 area and he lost sight of it. At that point, Jacquez stayed in his zone and did not respond because there were 3 or 4 agents between him and where Compean was. Jacquez didn’t feel he needed to respond at that point, but he changed his mind about 5 minutes later.
69-70 – Jacquez took the following route once he decided to respond: He took the levee west, got off at the Fabens Port of Entry, took Lower Island to Wingo Reserve and then to Jess Harris. It took him a couple of minutes to get to the scene. He saw Mendoza, Juarez and Vasquez standing by the van. There was nothing unusual about their behavior and they did not seem excited. No one mentioned a gun or a shooter. They talked about the dope seizure. They didn’t talk about what was happening on the other side of the ditch and no one was concerned about Ramos and Compean.
70-71 – After Lorenzo and Rene Mendez showed up, Jacquez saw Ramos and Compean walking up. Jacquez identified GOV EXH 31 as a photo of the ditch where the vehicles were. Jacquez indicated on GOV EXH 31 where Ramos and Compean approached the levee. He saw them walking on top of the levee – one in front of the other by about 4-5 feet. Jacquez did not see Compean lean over to pick anything up.
71 – When they reach the levee, they start talking to Lorenzo Yrigoyen who is parked next to Compean’s vehicle. Ramos and Compean stayed there a while.
72 – FOS Richards arrives at the van and starts discussing the seizure with the agents. At that point, Ramos comes across the ditch. He was breathing hard and the agents teased him about being out of shape.
72-73 – Ramos tells Richards that he went after the driver of the van and that Compean was cut and is bleeding. Jacquez could not see Compean then but he saw him later and he had a cut between his thumb and finger. Jacquez didn’t see any other injuries.
73-74 – Richards asked Ramos if Compean was okay, and Ramos said yes. Richards asked Ramos if he needed to fill out a CA-1 – Notice of Traumatic Injury and Compensation of Pay. Jacquez doesn’t remember what Ramos said.
74 – Robert Arnold and Lance Medrano showed up and the agents were told to put the dope in their vehicles and take it back to the station.
74-75 – At the scene, no one talks about a shooting. Jacquez first hears about the shooting when he gets back to the station. Jacquez was fueling at the gas pump at the station and Art Vasquez told Jacquez that “there were shots at the scene and that Compean had shot him.” That’s all they discussed. After that, Jacquez parked his car and went inside.
75-76 – Jacquez went into processing and asked Compean what had happened:
“Q. What did he say?
A. He told me that he lost the van. He saw a van leaving the 76 area, lost sight of it. And then, when it started going southbound, he stayed on the levee to stop the driver from making it back to Mexico.
Q. And then what happened?
A. He said when the driver got down into the drainage ditch, that he told the driver to stop and the driver never stopped. And that he tried to hit him with the shotgun.
Q. And what happened after he tried to hit him with the shotgun?
A. I guess he missed. And he had slipped. And the driver went around him.
Q. Compean is telling you this?
A. Yes.
Q. That he missed and he slipped?
A. Yes.
Q. Slipped where? Do you remember?
A. No. I believe in the drainage ditch.
Q. Where?
A. In the drainage ditch.
Q. And, now, what did Compean say he did next?
A. He said that he shot at the driver of the van.
Q. And after Compean shot the driver, what did he do? I only want to know what Compean did.
A. That’s all he told me. He shot at him.
Q. Did he go after him? Did he chase him? Did he tell you that?
A. No.”
77-78 – Jacquez identified GOV EXH 96 – Jacquez’s first statement to C. Sanchez. Mr. Gonzalez handed the statement to Jacquez to refresh his recollection regarding what Compean did “after he shot the driver.” [Defense counsel objected to the characterization that Compean “shot the driver” as opposed to “shot at the driver.” The Court sustained the objection.] After reviewing his statement, Jacquez stated Compean told him he “chased after the driver.” [Gonzalez directed Jacquez to another part of the statement. Defense counsel objected that Gonzalez was effectively asking Jacquez to read from his statement. The Court sustained the objection.]
78-79 – Jacquez asked Compean why he didn’t use the baton instead of the shotgun. He asked this because of something he learned at the academy:
“Q. How are you trained at the academy?
A. Just, if somebody — if you’re not in fear of your life, then, if somebody is coming at you, to stop the threat, I would think, since he swung at him with the shotgun instead of shooting it, I just thought the baton would be more convenient to use.
Q. Okay. During your conversation with Agent Compean, did he ever tell you that he was in fear of his life when he was going to apprehend the fleeing driver?
A. No, sir.”
79-80 – Compean never told Jacquez that he had an altercation or that the fleeing driver jumped on his back, nor did Compean say that the driver had a gun or a shiny object in his hand.
Ramos cross-examination (by Stephen G. Peters):
80-81 – Jacquez first talked to C. Sanchez with a union representative and that’s when he said he wanted a lawyer. The people at Jacquez’s first meeting did not threaten him but they were somewhat rude and unfriendly. After that meeting, Jacquez talked to a lawyer who arranged for Jacquez to get a proffer letter so he couldn’t be criminally prosecuted. That was important for him to have before he talked to anyone about this.
81-82 – Later on, Jacquez learned about potential charges against him for a false statement, because he omitted the part about Compean telling him about the shooting; for failure to report; and for obstruction of justice. Jacquez doesn’t recall the lawyer telling him what kind of punishment he could receive.
82-83 – Jacquez was contacted by Freddie Bonilla, the investigator for Ramos, but Jacquez didn’t choose talk to him. Jacquez chose not to talk to Bonilla because he “just wanted to keep my statement, I guess, since I already had given it to the prosecutor, just like that.”
83-84 – Jacquez didn’t intend to do anything wrong on February 17, 2005. The first radio transmission he heard was Compean calling out a minivan leaving area 76, an area known as a crossing point for drugs. He assumed the minivan was hauling dope. Jacquez thought he heard Compean say a minivan but the transcript doesn’t say that. Jacquez thought he was on the Rimrock channel so it would have been on the transcript, so if Compean said minivan, he must have been on another channel.
85 – Later, Jacquez heard the van was at the intersection of Highway 20 (Alameda) and Fabens Island Road. That was not on the transcript. Ramos said he got behind the van as it went south on Fabens Road, and that was not on the transcript so it was on the unrecorded channel.
85-86 – Jacquez saw Juarez and 2 other agents when he pulled up to the ditch that Jess Harris “Ts” into. Jacquez did not hear any gunfire. He doesn’t know but he would probably expect an agent who had heard gunfire to react in some way.
86 – Jacquez stated that if he had heard gunfire, he would have gone into the ditch.
86-87 – Yrigoyen arrived shortly after Jacquez arrived. The only one on the south side of the ditch was Compean. No one was there to back Compean up unless someone ran over like Ramos did, to try to help him out. Jacquez would have gone to back him up. It would have been logical for Juarez to back up a fellow agent.
88 – When Jacquez got to the ditch, no one mentioned anything about gunfire. They were excited about the dope seizure. Jacquez looked in the van and smelled marijuana. It was pretty powerful – you could smell it.
88-89 – Ramos came up on the levee and talked with Yrigoyen. Compean came up at the same time, a few steps behind Ramos. They were walking at an angle, not side by side.
89-90 – Then FOS Richards arrived and Ramos started talking to Richards. Jacquez heard Ramos tell Richards the “doper had thrown dirt in Compean’s face” and that Compean and the doper got into a physical altercation. Ramos kept referring to the driver as the doper, and Ramos told Richards that Compean was cut and bleeding. Richards asked Ramos if Compean needed to fill out a CA-1, a form to fill out for a traumatic injury but not just a scratch.
90 – Jacquez stated that Compean’s injury was a cut to his right hand, between his thumb and finger. It was not a traumatic injury that you would get time off for unless it became infected.
90 – Compean also had dirt on his uniform.
90-91 – Ramos was breathing hard and seemed excited. Jacquez did not recall a second conversation with Ramos.
91-92 – Jacquez gave 2 separate statements and a clarification. [Peters gave Jacquez the 3rd page of his original statement from April to refresh his recollection.] Ramos told Jacquez that the driver/doper threw dirt in Compean’s face. Jacquez agreed it was a criminal offense of assault on a federal officer for a fleeing felon to throw dirt in a BP agent’s face.
92 – Jacquez did not believe he was required to report the shooting because he did not see or hear it and he was the junior man out there. Jacquez assumed that Richards had been told.
93-94 – When Jacquez was talking to Compean at the station, he wasn’t cross-examining him or taking a formal statement. It was a casual conversation and Compean didn’t tell Jacquez every detail.
94 – The reason Jacquez did not record [report?] the shooting was not because he was trying to cover it up.
Compean cross-examination (by Chris Antcliff):
95 – Jacquez didn’t try to do anything wrong on February 17, 2005. He needed immunity because of things that came after that date. What he did wrong was give a statement that failed to say Compean told him about the shooting. Jacquez later gave a corrected statement in which he did say that.
95 – Jacquez’s first statement after his immunity agreement was in April 2005. His lawyer was present. Jacquez did say that Vasquez told him about the shooting and Jacquez reported everything Vasquez told him.
96 – Jacquez’s second statement was on September 27, 2005. Ms. Kanof, Mr. Gonzalez, and C. Sanchez were present. They told Jacquez to tell the truth and that worried him. Jacquez knew he could go to jail if he didn’t honor the terms of the immunity agreement and tell the truth.
96-97 – Some of the things Jacquez put in the second statement in September 2005 were not in the first statement in April. The second statement was about 6 months after the incident on February 17, 2005.
97 – Failure to report is a violation of BP policy with a penalty of reprimand or suspension.
97 – Jacquez talked to Compean in September about the shooting. Compean never asked Jacquez to lie about anything.
97-98 – A BP agent who gets out of his vehicle with a shotgun won’t have time to put it down and get a baton when chasing a suspect. The agent will use whatever is at hand.
98-99 – Jacquez was miles from the location when the 76 call came in. He could have gone down the levee road but it is narrow and you can’t go very fast. However, Jacquez chose to get off the levee because there was another vehicle already on the levee. Jacquez would expect to arrive at the location about the same time as the unit on the levee, regardless of the route Jacquez took.
99 – Yrigoyen and his trainee, Mendez, were the agents on the levee. Jacquez talked to them to know they were going on the levee.
99-100 – At the time of the call, Jacquez did not know that Compean was the only agent on the south side of the levee where the van was. It would have been important for Jacquez to know that Compean was there alone.
100 – When Jacquez arrived at the scene, Mendoza, Juarez, and Vasquez were there at the van. Jacquez was the third vehicle in back on Jess Harris, the last vehicle before Supervisor Richards arrived.
100-101 – Jacquez looked in the van. It was a big load. Jacquez doesn’t recall opening any doors. The driver’s door was open. The other agents had seen the bundles before Jacquez arrived. Jacquez looked in the van but did not search it. Jacquez had not seen the driver, Ramos or Compean, but he had seen Compean’s vehicle on the levee.
101-102 – Jacquez was there a few minutes before he saw Yrigoyen’s vehicle drive up on the levee, about the time Jacquez saw Ramos and Compean walk up the levee slope – one behind the other. Ramos was first and he said something to Yrigoyen. Jacquez thought it was a casual conversation but he didn’t know what they said.
102-103 – Ramos left [the levee] to come across the ditch after FOS Richards arrived. Ramos walked up to Richards as the agents were talking together. Richards was congratulating them on the dope seizure. Jacquez heard him say, “Good job, guys.” Jacquez doesn’t know how long they talked.
104 – Ramos told Richards he went after the driver – that he crossed the ditch and chased the driver. Ramos was the only agent to help Compean. Jacquez heard Ramos tell Richards that Compean had a confrontation and was cut and bleeding.
104-105 – Jacquez later spoke with Compean at the station. Compean told Jacquez that he [Compean] had told the driver to stop several times.
105 – Jacquez never saw the driver on February 17, 2005.
105-106 – Jacquez was aware of what happened that day because he heard Ramos report it to his supervisor. Jacquez “didn’t think twice” about why Compean didn’t say, “I was shot” that day. Jacquez was convinced that Compean shot in self-defense that day.
106 – Jacquez told C. Sanchez that Juarez said he saw Ramos cross the ditch and chase the driver.
Government redirect examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):
106-107 – Jacquez doesn’t know if Compean acted in self-defense because he wasn’t there. Knowing Compean, he would believe it but Jacquez doesn’t know what went on out there.
107-108 – Jacquez was first interviewed about this incident in April 2005 when he asked for immunity, a couple of months after February 17, 2005. Jacquez finally told the full story in September 2005 when he was told he had to by his lawyer, Ms. Kanof, and C. Sanchez.
108 – Jacquez said Ramos told him the driver threw dirt in Compean’s face. He did not mention anything about a shooting. It’s worse to be shot at than to have dirt thrown in your face.
108-109 – [Gonzalez showed Jacquez 18 USC 112, 113(a)(5).] Jacquez acknowledged that throwing dirt in an agent’s face would be a misdemeanor, not a felony. Jacquez was wrong when he said it was a felony.
109 – Jacquez doesn’t know if Richards asked Compean if he was okay. Jacquez heard Richards ask Ramos if Compean was okay. Ramos said he looked fine.
109-110 – Officers have walkie-talkies and can ask for help if they are in distress. [Defense objection to leading question sustained.] Jacquez doesn’t recall anyone using a walkie-talkie on February 17, 2005.
110-111 – Agents check out a shotgun when needed and carry a baton on their duty belt. If Compean had his baton on February 17, 2005, he had it with him on his duty belt. The shotgun is secured in the holder. You hit the unlock button and it pops up. It’s easier to get out of the vehicle with the baton than the shotgun. Compean apparently chose to use the shotgun.
111-112 – Jacquez did not forget Compean told him about the shooting. He made a choice to forget. [Defense objection to leading question sustained.] Jacquez had to tell the truth in September because he didn’t want anything to happen to him.
112 – If Jacquez had shot at someone, he would have reported it. Jacquez had no idea anyone had shot at Ramos or Compean.
Ramos recross-examination (by Stephen G. Peters):
113 – Jacquez was threatened with indictment in September. They spoke to him the way they spoke on redirect today. Jacquez was going to be indicted because he didn’t remember it the way they thought it happened.
113 – Jacquez would have reported it if he thought Compean had committed an attempted murder.
113-114 – An agent would call for backup on his walkie-talkie but he can’t call for backup while trying to stop an alien. You can’t talk on the walkie-talkie if you are out of breath like Ramos was. If you see a fellow agent in an altercation, you don’t get on your walkie-talkie, you go help them.
114-115 – Juarez had a walkie-talkie. If anyone was going to call for backup it should have been Juarez.
Compean recross-examination (by Chris Antcliff):
115 – Jacquez is not a lawyer and doesn’t know the penalties for criminal offenses or whether they are misdemeanors or felonies. Jacquez only knew he was threatened with jail time if he didn’t tell the truth.
115-116 – Jacquez would have reported it if he had discharged his weapon. He had an obligation to report a discharge but he didn’t. He’s been on administrative leave.
116 – Jacquez had a lawyer when he made his first statement. He knew he had to tell the truth. It was not in his interest to lie given the terms of his proffer letter.
Government redirect examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):
117 – Jacquez lied on his own. He wasn’t protecting anyone. His attorney told him to “come clean” in September.
117 – Kanof, Gonzalez, and C. Sanchez never told Jacquez what to say. They told him to tell the truth and he did that today.
117 – [Pass the witness.]
117-118 – [Bench conference re: scheduling.]
118 – [Court in recess for lunch.]
Here I think we see the first clear evidence that Ramos was covering up the shooting.
He was the senior agent there, and the first of the agents present during the incident to talk to the supervisor. Remember that Richards arrives while Ramos is crossing back to the north side of the ditch. Jacquez’s testimony suggests that Ramos saw Richards arriving, and scurried back to meet him. Ramos, who had been standing on the levee in view of the van and the agents present, would have known he had just arrived, and might have seen his vehicle approaching.
Much of what Jacquez relates about Ramos’ actions (line 104) sounds like a subordinate giving his report to a supervisor – he fills him in on what happened, but leaves out the key fact that he was required to report: that shots had been fired.
Some have suggested that Ramos and Compean were too mentally pre-occupied by the psychological trauma of the shooting to even speak to each other during the time they watched for the suspect, then walked back to the levee, and then stood together on the levee. If so, it seems mighty odd that in the short time (probably a minute or less) it took Ramos to cross the ditch, he went from being totally absorbed by the shooting to not even bothering to mention it in his briefing of Richards. He tells Richards everything, except the fact that was supposedly the only thing on his mind since the shooting occurred.
Not credible.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 1:33 amThreaten agents with indictment if they don’t tell the prosecution the story the prosecution wants to hear. Yeah, that makes testimony creditable, doesn’t it?
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/24/2007 @ 6:55 amThen, to make it even better, give illegal aliens lots and lots of perks to testify against BP agents.
Are there no rules about threatening witnesses in order to get the testimony you want? Or are we all at the mercy of rogue prosecutors?
Ramos/Compean, Hernandez, Sipe and others. Can no one see a pattern here? All at the request of the Mexican government.
Be prepared for BP agents to leave the agency in droves, boys and girls.
“Threaten agents with indictment if they don’t tell the prosecution the story the prosecution wants to hear. Yeah, that makes testimony creditable, doesn’t it?”
I agree. To me, it’s like we, in the legal field, pretend that it’s perfectly acceptable and normal for the government to take witnesses and eke testimony out of them over a period of months using threats. Even the threat of an unfounded charge is overwhelming given that hiring a lawyer can drive a family into bankruptcy.
Frankly, I don’t see the difference in this and the Mafia threatening witnesses with retribution if they don’t testify in the manner desired by the Mafiosca (sp?). I realize that some may jump me over the comparison, but I will remain unmoved. Our judicial system is made by fallen man with all his faults and evils. That is why I am not a statist. I am a Reform Christian and I will not place a manmade system above truth and God’s law. So, even though the government, the courts and most lawyers involved can take this sort of thing in stride, I can’t.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:11 amJerry, it is quite clear from the Border Patrol web sites that the moral is low, low, low. They are warning BP agents to be very careful and above all, protect themselves against prosecution by rogue U.S. attorneys.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/24/2007 @ 12:09 pmNo agency can sustain it’s numbers when moral is at an all time low. When Mexican Counsulate is allowed on BP property to interview captured Mexican nationals BEFORE the BP can even take those illegal’s statements, something is terribly wrong within the system. When the Mexican government can bring pressure to prosecuted law enforcement officers for doing their jobs, something is terribly wrong.
Jerri Lynn, retire05
Again
how do you get the bullet out of his butt
The bullets back into his gun
A gun in AD’s hand, really the forensic evidence is all they really needed- bullet – butt – reloading – no evidence that AD defended himself
this disengenious complete disregard of the facts seems very third world, dictator type intellectualism.
the only way you can win is you prove that
All the witnessess were guilty instead or lied to save their skin (none of them discharged their weapons)
That somehow the DHS created this entire scenario somehow targeting these two guys an a sophisticated operation that took the cooperation ofseveral law enforcement orgainzations
are you listening to yourselves?
Now you can argue that they were not subject to the 10 year mandatory sentence or you can argue their was an element of reasonable doubt – maybe
But you are mired in this maze of breathlessly hyped interweaven cascading conspiracys.
Wow!!!!
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/24/2007 @ 12:23 pm“That somehow the DHS created this entire scenario somehow targeting these two guys an a sophisticated operation that took the cooperation ofseveral law enforcement orgainzations”
Which other law enforcement agencies were involved? I missed that.
Eric, I deal with government investigations day in and day out–and I am sorry but I totally believe that investigations can be spun. Right now, I am dealing with the aftermath of a goverment investigation that is resulting in the termination of my client’s Medicare/Medicaid contract. The investigation this is based upon is appallingly “spun” to me. I’m not a conspiracy-theorist, but I know from personal experience that bureaucracies can frame facts with context favorable to their positions.
It has not been proven to me that Compean and Ramos are lying when they maintain that they thought OAD pointed a gun.
The “reloading” was a magazine exchange while firing which Michael Hunter confirms is a tactic used to ensure that one does not run out of ammo. The way you seem to describe it is that Compean ran out of ammo and reloaded to shoot some more.
I don’t apologize for my opinions regarding grants of immunity. I believe that they are deals with the devil. I place little weight on the testimony of those who got it.
Especially Juarez, since it took 3 interrogations to get his testimony to the point the prosecution thought it was acceptable–the last interrogation failing to yield a written statement, and I believe if I remember correctly, any discoverable notes from the prosecution,
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 12:56 pmAt this point, any border patrol agent who would report a confrontation with a Mexican smuggler would be a complete fool who is putting himself and his family at risk.
Rene Sanchez is still on duty and he knows how to use BPETS.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/24/2007 @ 1:19 pmEricPW, please provide me with the testimony of the ballistics expert from the Texas DPS lab that states uneqivocally that the bullet removed from OAD came from Ramos’s gun.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/24/2007 @ 1:36 pmIs there even a remote possibility that OAD could have been shot by his bosses for losing the “load”? Or do you think that losing a million bucks worth of pot is just no big deal to the drug cartel? Does it not even pique your interest in the slighest why OAD waited for three weeks to have his mother contact another BP agent for help? Where is the testimony of how long the pathologist felt that OAD had had the wound? If he was limping when he reentered Mexico could it have been from a fall in the ditch?
Do you deny that the other BP agents were threatened with prosecution if their stories did not suit the prosecution? Do you think they would not lie to protect their jobs knowing that the U.S. attorney was going to go after them next?
And of course, you must think that OAD had no interest in making the BP agents out to be the bad guys. After all, he was just a poor Mexican drug smuggler just trying to make a living to get medical help for his poor mother.
Indeed. I came into this case knowing very little about it. I am a conservative, and all else being equal, I would tend to give law enforcement officers doing their jobs the benefit of the doubt.
After DRJ’s first few excellent summaries, I wanted to know more, so I read all the transcripts. I had not formed an opinion before I did so. And having read both the evidence and the bench discussions the jury was not privy to, I came to the conclusions:
1) Based on what is contained in the transcripts, the agents got a fair trial.
2) They were guilty as charged, beyond any reasonable doubt.
I do feel extremely sorry for them, and their families, since they started out trying to do their jobs, which are extremely difficult ones.
But they made serious mistakes, including corruptly concealing and destroying evidence of their own possible wrong-doing. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think it was their cover-up that put them behind bars, and if they had played by the rules after the incident, they would probably be free today.
The advocates for the defendants here do not seem to have much to contribute except far-out conspiracy theories and emotional rants about the immigration problem, which occasionally descend into bigotry.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 1:40 pmThere was no need for testimony – the defense did not dispute that.
Mis-states the facts. The incident occurred on February 17. R.Sanchez first learned of the shooting from his mother-in-law on February 28. That is 11 days, not three weeks.
Since the bullet came from Ramos’ service weapon, where and when OAD was wounded was not disputed by the defense.
You are really grasping at straws. Ask yourself whether you would need to do that if there was any reasonable evidence for your theories.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 1:52 pmEricPW, before you get dragged into Post No. 8’s debate, remember, Ramos’s attorney stipulated that the bullet came from Ramos’s gun. She could have put the government through their paces and cross-examined the ballistics witness, but she conceded the point instead.
lc (1401be) — 2/24/2007 @ 1:54 pmLaguna Dave,
I have been extremely impressed by and complimentary of your analysis of the evidence. It has given me pause on more than one occasion.
Your statement that those on this site who cite facts, evidence, questions or arguments in support the defendants add nothing of value to this debate is unfair and insupportable. I have gained “value” from the comments of everyone participating in this debate whether I agree with them or not.
As nk, I believe, said, many of us are looking at this in a different manner than an Appellate Court. Therefore, we are looking both at and beyond the transcript. I, personally, never believe that trial transcripts embody the complete truth of any case.
Further, I believe that the “not guilty” for the attempted murder count and the “guilty” for the assault represents some cognitive dissonance on the part of the jury as to whether or not the shooting was unwarranted beyond an reasonable doubt.
In fact, I hope that one of the lawyers who had done an appeal lately will weigh in on the issue of whether or not the two comprise irreconcilable or conflicting verdicts worthy of arguing before the Appellate court.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 2:07 pmJerri Lynn,
Obviously I’m guessing (and unlike most of you, I haven’t read all the transcript) but based on my experience with juries I think the jury might have “split the baby.” In hotly contested cases where your main evidence is people’s recollections, juries tend to believe a little of both. I also suspect they remembered the testimony of Aldrete-Davila who said he didn’t think the agents were shooting to kill, or words to that effect.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 2:13 pmI am just lovin’ it how all those on this board chose to believe a drug smuggling scumbag whose injuries didn’t prevent him from pursuing his trade later on. Not to mention the oh-so-honest testimony of BP agents that were threatened by the prosecution.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/24/2007 @ 2:31 pmAmerican justice at it’s finest.
And I guess David Sipe should still be sitting in jail, as well?
DRJ went to the trouble of providing us a nice summary of the evidence presented in the transcript. It is not for me to say what is in-bounds for discussion here, but arguments that do not go to the evidence seem pretty pointless in a thread devoted to the testimony of a particular witness.
Jacquez did nothing wrong on the day of the incident. His immunity was because he omitted the important fact of his conversation with Compean – a fact which Compean revealed in his own statement (and confirmed in his testimony). Afterwards, Jacquez was confronted with Compean’s statement and asked why he did not reveal the conversation himself.
So I just don’t see how the government pressured Jacquez to get him to say “what they wanted”, or how his immunity deal is material to anything. They got him to admit that he hadn’t told the full truth the first time, based on what they already knew from an admission by the defendant.
Far from being rewarded by the government for assisting in the alleged frame-up, Jacquez was later dismissed (and properly so) for the false statement he originally made.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 2:32 pmRetire05,
It’s clear you are frustrated with this case. I imagine other commenters are frustrated to be attacked because they express another point of view. I don’t think we can “solve” this case and I frankly doubt we can reach any kind of agreement, but I hope we can at least discuss it in good faith. I hope you feel the same way.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 2:38 pmDRJ, I will not deny that I am frustrated with this case. This case and the cases of Gilmer Hernandez, David Sipe and others who have been prosecuted by an over zealous U.S. attorney who seems to be taking his marching orders from another nation. I am frustrated that we even allow another nation to interfer in our judicial system. I am frustrated that that same nation does nothing to stop the corruption within it’s own border. I am frustrated that that nation does nothing to honor our borders while placing it’s own military on it’s southern borders to stop the flow of illegals from Central America.
As long as there are those in this nation who value the word of a drug smuggler who continued his trade with the help of our U.S. attorney’s office, I will remain frustrated.
I will not apologize for hating those who bring poison to our children. Nor will you if you ever find your child dead from an overdose of drugs brought to you compliments of a Mexican drug cartel.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:20 pm12
Regarding attempted murder vrs assault, the case against attempted murder is that by OAD’s testimony the agents walked away while he was lying in plain sight after being shot. Letting OAD get up and escape to Mexico seems inconsistent with an intent to kill him.
Or to put it another way, there does not have to be an intent to kill for the shooting to be unwarranted.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:20 pm“Letting OAD get up and escape to Mexico seems inconsistent with an intent to kill him.”
I am not convinced that happened. But I concede that it is more likely than not that the Appellate Court will agree that there is sufficient evidence to support the story you relate, therefore negating the irreconcilable verdict theory.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:25 pmJerri Lynn – Assault and attempted murder require two very different mental states.
All the federal circuit court sites appear to be down today – otherwise I’d link you to the jury instructions.
Maybe someone else has a different source.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:31 pmTracy,
I know you are correct, though I would like to look at the jury instructions. I was focusing on the admissions by both Ramos and Compean that they were shooting to kill.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:37 pmJerri Lynn,
I agree with your conclusion and Tracy’s comment. In general, assault is an intent to cause bodily harm and attempted murder is an attempt to cause death. I think the jury could logically conclude there was an intent to cause bodily harm but not an intent to cause death.
Tracy: “All the federal circuit court sites appear to be down today – ” … Watch out – that’s how conspiracy stories start!
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:40 pmJerri Lynn,
That’s what I meant by splitting the baby. Even if Ramos and Compean claimed they were shooting to kill, Aldrete-Davila did not think they would and/or were shooting to kill. (Vol VII, p 115.) In the face of that type of conflict, my experience is that juries opt for the lesser charge.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:43 pmTracy, aren’t you a criminal attorney. Would you try the irreconcilable verdict argument upon appeal.
Although I realize it’s a longshot, there are some factors that I wonder about.
1. The agents admitted that they were shooting to kill.
2. I haven’t seen any evidence that they were trying to maim him or stop him for arrest by shooting him.
What do you think?
I know that many here think the shoot was bad–but is there some thought here that the agents were trying to wound–but not kill OAD?
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:46 pmDRJ,
When you say they were splitting the baby, does that mean to you that they had some doubts, i.e. cognitive dissonance? I know intuitively what you mean, because I’ve used that phrase myself–only I was usually referring to what juries did with the amount of damages.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:48 pmWhile the agents may have said they were shooting to kill I believe a reasonable interpretation of this phrasing is that they were using potentially lethal force (to stop a threat) not that they had a specific intent to kill.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/24/2007 @ 3:59 pmJerri Lynn,
I believe in the jury system and I don’t mean this to sound otherwise. However, I think some juries focus more on a just result than following the Court’s instructions, especially when the facts are unclear. I don’t think juries do this where the defendant could be innocent but this could happen in criminal cases where guilt is probable and the question is “guilty of what?”
Based on the juror’s post-verdict interviews and affidavits, it may be that some jurors weren’t convinced of guilt at trial. I hope these affidavits were just a form of buyers’ remorse and those jurors didn’t vote to convict despite questions about guilt, but I can’t rule out that some jurors went along with a jury verdict of guilt out of peer pressure. Unfortunately, I’ve seen that happen, too, but I don’t think it’s common.
I will mention again that I’m not a prosecutor or a criminal law lawyer. However, I live in a small town and have many friends in the bar who are prosecutors and defense counsel. Over the years I’ve helped one close friend who represents defendants in several cases, and I attended many of his trials “just for fun” because he is known as a skilled trial attorney. That experience, coupled with my own experiences in dealing with civil trial juries, contributes to my opinion regarding what juries think and do.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 4:28 pm“Based on the juror’s post-verdict interviews and affidavits, it may be that some jurors weren’t convinced of guilt at trial. I hope these affidavits were just a form of buyers’ remorse and those jurors didn’t vote to convict despite questions about guilt, but I can’t rule out that some jurors went along with a jury verdict of guilt out of peer pressure.”
I’m with you on that. I’ve never seen jurors cry upon delivering a verdict as has been reported about this case.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 4:32 pmJerri Lynn wrote:
Absolutely – all one has to do is look at the case against Libby to know that it’s possible for an investigation to be spun – by an ambitious federal prosecutor with an agenda no less. Are we supposed to just believe that’s an isolated incident?
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/24/2007 @ 5:24 pmNo, and I guess the only alternative is to conclude once and for all that, whatever evidence was presented, every last bit of it was utterly and completely false, and Ramos and Compean were completely innocent of any wrong-doing whatsover.
Again, the only defense for Ramos and Compean seems to consist of irrelevancies. Our legal system is imperfect (although the appeal process available to the convicted agents has not even begun) – is that your point? If so, then should every convicted felon be released? Or only those you are sympathetic to?
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 5:34 pmI do occasional emergency writs – but I don’t do appeals. I love being in trial. I like the courtroom too much to leave it for the intellectualism of appeals. And I couldn’t even opine about a possible irreconcilable verdit without seeing the jury instructions. (I thought it was interesting that unless I missed something, the jurors don’t appear to have been orally instructed much. Is that common in federal courts? You just give them a stack of paper and hope they sort it out?) I can tell you off the top of my head that in CA state court if is very easy to come to one verdict without coming to the other.
I’ve been through the entire transcript – including when the jury was polled on thier verdicts. It is interesting that they made a factual finding that does seem contrary to a not guilty verdict on the attempted murder. Confusing.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 5:38 pmLaguna Dave,
I have a favor to ask. Staying within the transcripts, would you please outline every piece of totally objective physical evidence that proves to you the agents’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ignore all testimonial evidence from any agent who was given immunity –or supervisors who might have suffered career-wise.
Just as the jury could have done, I discount the testimony of every agent who was given immunity. I discount Richards because he admitted failing to file a pursuit report, and because his job was on the line. I discount OAD because he received benefits and had motive to lie.Throw out Ramos and Compean’s testimony–since you don’t believe them.
Now, outline the objective, physical evidence which, in your mind proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they shot at a man they knew to be unarmed.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 5:42 pmFirst of all, Dave, calm down, would you?
Second, as you state your are a conservative, then skepticism of government actions should be encoded in your political DNA – including that of those who prosecute in its name. Given Sutton’s history in other cases, given our government’s near total unwillingness to enforce laws that are broken daily by illegal aliens while at the same time throwing the full weight of the federal government behind prosecutions against those who defend it, given that federal prosecutors are human beings like everybody else and are thus not all immune to political ambition, etc. etc. etc., a lack of skepticism in analyzing a case like this is the height of stupidity. This case did not occur in a vacuum, nor was it an isolated incident, and when considering whether true justice was served, it is perfectly reasonable to consider it in light of the big picture.
Third, I’ve never said we should disregard all evidence against these Ramos and Compean or conclude that it was all utterly and completely false. Good job kicking that straw man’s ass, there, Dave.
Nor do I think Ramos and Compean are complete angels. That being said, I don’t think this case is anywhere near as one-sided as the prosecution has presented it, and I do think there is plenty of room for reasonable doubut on certain issues, i.e. whether or not Compean and Ramos had reason to believe that A-D was armed. The totality of evidence availabe on that point is inconclusive at best, and as such I give the benefit of the doubt to the border patrol agents over that of a known drug smuggler testifying under an immunity agreement. And our imperfect legal system demands that where doubt resides, the defendants get the benefit.
You can cite all the statistics you want about whether or not other smugglers were armed in other seizures of drug loads, but the only thing that really matters on that day is what Ramos and Compean believed to be true, and that was a matter upon which they had a split second to decide.
While I think disciplinary action was definitely warranted for the aftermath of this case, I think the sentences these two received were an absolute travesty and a gross miscarraige of justice. If they had merely been fired, or maybe even gotten a year or so of jail time, I would have no problem with it, given what I know.
And finally Dave, if you can’t handle opinions here that dissent from or challenge your own, then take a hike to an echo chamber somewhere where you and others that agree with everything about this prosecution and have absolute faith that all was done correctly and in the name of justice can pat yourselves on the back about how much more intelligent you are than us benighted ones who have the gall to ask questions.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/24/2007 @ 6:38 pmJerri Lynn –
I don’t want to answer for Dave, but the agents’ own acts and words convict them.
I posted a theory by which I thought I could have defended Ramos from conviction – but Dave shot that down pretty easily.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 6:39 pmTracy,
I just re-read Ramos’s testimony and I don’t see it. What am I missing?
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 6:47 pmAnd by “it”, I am focusing on the alleged perception expressed by Ramos that he thought he saw a gun. I am not focusing on the supposed cover-up which I believe to be open to other explanation.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 6:51 pmYou have just excluded essentially all the evidence. Lawyers think they’re so clever…
I see no reason to exclude the defendants, since they presumably did not intentionally lie in a manner prejudicial to their own defense.
I also see no reason to discount Richards, since nobody alleges he did anything improper, and the testimony was unanimous that he was a stickler for always following correct procedures. He reported everything he had knowledge of that he was supposed to report. He had no knowledge of any high-speed pursuit – how could he? Ramos by his own admission did not tell him or radio it in.
Who does that leave:
R.Sanchez
C.Sanchez
Compean
Ramos
Yrigoyen
Mendez
Mendoza
Richards
Arnold
The Sanchez’s had no direct knowledge of the incident or its immediate aftermath. So we are left with two defendants, three unimmunized BPA’s, two unimmunized supervisors, and a couple medical witnesses.
They did not have to know the man they shot at was unarmed to be guilty. They had to have lacked a reasonable cause to use deadly force to be guilty of the assault charge.
Also, the restriction to “objective, physical evidence” is too narrow. Per the standard jury instructions, there is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. Very few cases are decided on the basis of “objective, physical” evidence, since there is very little evidence, physical or otherwise, which is “objective”.
The bullet extracted from OAD proves he was shot by Ramos. Ramos and Compean admit that they shot at him that day.
Compean and Ramos’s own testimony convicts them of the cover-up charges, obviously.
The cover-up calls into serious question their belief that the shooting was justified.
Compean’s failure to mention OAD’s gun, or the shooting, to Yrigoyen and Mendez does likewise.
Ramos’s failure to mention OAD’s gun, or the shooting, to Richards is testified to by Mendoza and Richards. This omission likewises calls into question his belief that the shooting was justified. Were the shooting justified, Ramos would have wanted to report it to protect himself. He would have also wanted to investigate the area where OAD fell, to find the alleged weapon, or any shell casings that might have been fired at him or Compean.
Indeed, there is another very suspicious inconsistency between Compean and Ramos’ testimony. Compean claims that OAD flashed a gun. Ramos was in ditch and heard multiple shots but saw nothing. He claims he emerged from the ditch, saw OAD flash the gun again, and fired once. After OAD had vanished (according to both defendants) Ramos checked out Compean, asked if he was OK, and the two never exchanged another word while they were on the scene.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Well, if Ramos was truthful, he had no way to know whether OAD fired shots at Compean. He heard many shots, and testified that he couldn’t tell whether one person or two was firing. Compean never told him anything about what had transpired before Ramos crossed the levee. So there should have been shell casings from OAD’s alleged weapon on the ground, if it had been fired. Ramos even testified that seeing Compean on the ground, he thought he might have been shot, and according to his testimony, that is why he checked Compean for bullet wounds during the only exchange of words they admit to. Yet Ramos, believing that OAD had fired at Compean, apparently had no interest whatsoever, even after OAD had crossed the Mexican levee and was no longer a threat, in looking for and retrieving those shell casings. Why? Because he never saw a gun in the first place. No gun – no casings, and no reason to look for them.
On the other hand, Ramos and Compean’s admitted actions are completely consistent with men who:
a) knew that a bad shoot had taken place
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:08 pmb) wanted to conceal that fact, and
c) wanted to obstruct any investigation which might determine whether, in fact, it was a good or bad shoot
Jerri Lynn – you’ve been nothing but gracious. So I don’t want to have what I’m saying be taken as anything but reflecting the tone you’ve set. But it’s hard to separate the two “its”.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:19 pmAnyone catch Glenn Beck’s show the other night on the OTHER agent who was fired some time ago? There may be a re-run this weekend, so try and make the time to watch it, it’s another eye-opener.
rightisright (2fce83) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:25 pmLaguna Dave,
I will digest what you have posted here, but I was not trying to be cute. My point was that, just as the jury did, we can choose to believe or disbelieve certain testimony–which causes our decision to be based on subjective evidence.
I will refute what you said about Richards. He did not testify that a report had to be filed based on a “hot pusuit”. He testified that a report was supposed to be filed when any pursuit occurred–AND–he admitted that a pursuit had occurred and he was aware of it–yet he did not write a report. This is important to me because he was characterized as being a stickler for procedures and not one to convey to his “troops” that he didn’t want time and trouble taken to file reports that might bring the FBI in after a shift had ended.
Futher, although I intend to study your comments further, they all appear to be inferences based on testimony and not objective evidence. My point is that juries can draw different inferences for different reasons and can choose to believe or disbelieve witnesses for whatever reason.
I believe that reasonable people can draw different conclusions than you and Tracy have drawn.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:26 pmHey, hey, hey!
🙂
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:31 pmTracy,
I reread my comments and they did sound kind of stupid. I guess what I was conveying is that I thought Ramos’s testimony sounded reasonable when considered by itself.
I don’t read them with Compean’s testimony, because I don’t think it’s reasonable for both of them to have perceived the event in the same way.
So, I guess what I was asking is, was there something about Ramos’s testimony that struck you as inherently unreasonable when considered in a vacuum? I’m missing it.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:32 pmHow so? Oh, that’s right. Because Ramos’ attorney did not demand the testimony of the ballistics expert from TxDPS and accepted the statement of C. Sanchez that the bullet matched Ramos’ gun, you are alright with that. I have asked you before, where is the ballistics testimony?
You should be happy, Laguna Dave. Ramos and Compean are in prison and OAD is free to bring his drugs into the U.S. until he gets his $5 million from the government for violation of his civil rights. With any luck, his drugs will work their way to your family.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:35 pmWas there a motion to try these defendants separately? I thought Ramos could have had a better defense than Compean. From where he was, Ramos could have honestly believed there had been a threat against Compean.
I still think Compean was enraged and out of control and is in prison, right where he should be.
lc (1401be) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:40 pmlc,
I think you make an excellent point. I just looked at the docket sheet and I see no such motion. I have read interviews by Mary Stillinger, Ramos’s attorney, insisting that Ramos should be looked at differently than Compean–which I agree with.
I don’t know if Compean was enraged–but, even if he was, I disagree with the length of the sentence.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:49 pmJerri Lynn – You don’t sound “stupid”. You’re stubborn. But so am I. Stubborn and stupid are two different things. We hope…. At least I’d say so in our mutual defense. Just because you and I don’t agree doesn’t mean that I’d disparage you. Especially since you’ve been a courteous and intelligent paladin for Ramos & Compean.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:55 pmI disagree with the length of sentences, too.
And I know Mary Stillinger says that now. And I think she’s right. But, too often, I see in cases with two or more defendants, the defense attorneys for all defendants act like they’re “co-counsel,” with an all-for-one and one-for-all strategy. Often times, that’s a mistake.
lc (1401be) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:55 pmDo you know anything about the legal system? A jury’s job is to determine the facts from testimony. In situations where the facts are not in dispute, the parties stipulate to them. That saves time and allows the attorneys and jury to concentrate on the facts that are in dispute. Facts that are stipulated to are considered proven.
If there was any basis for challenging the ballistics report, why wouldn’t the defense have done so? If there was no basis, there was no need for testimony.
You aren’t making much sense. Was C.Sanchez lying when he said the ballistics confirmed Ramos fired the bullet? Or was the TxDPS in on the conspiracy too?
Ad hominem attacks – always the sign of someone with a strong argument…
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 7:59 pmWow. Someone who sees it the way I do…
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:04 pmI knew I liked you, Tracy.
lc (1401be) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:04 pmTracy,
I believe that I am stubborn about this case because I want these guys to be pardoned. I believe that they won’t win upon appeal as you and Laguna Dave have so eloquently demonstrated. That said, I am still not convinced that they knew OAD did not have a gun.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:14 pmWay too true.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:16 pmWhere I work, at least on my side of the ball, we know that the court reporters, clerks and bailiffs are THE authorities about what’s REALLY goin’ on.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:31 pmI think you may be misinterpreting the testimony, but please correct me with a specific reference if I’m wrong.
The defense counsel launched into an odd hypothetical line of questioning with Richards about a witness (Arnold) who had yet to testify. Richards ended his testimony by saying he was not aware that any pursuit, high-or-low speed, occurred on that day. Arnold later testified that he was also aware of no pursuit that day. There was no evidence that Richards knew anything, and indeed, the record, including Ramos’ testimony, is quite clear that little to know clear information was broadcast by the agents involved in the chase.
It seems a bit of a stretch to suppose that Richards’ entire testimony was unreliable because of this red herring.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:41 pmI assume Compean and Ramos were indicted together. If so, I think it would have been difficult to get a severance under federal law. Here’s an example. I agree Ramos’ counsel should have considered severance and my guess is they did. Maybe the problem was defense counsels’ trial strategy or maybe it was the laws governing severance.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:42 pmLaguna Dave,
Go to the testimony beginning on page 244 in this volume
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 8:50 pmit appears to me that he concedes that it was a pursuit under the policies.
Do you believe Compean was shooting to kill Davila or shooting to make him surrender?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:03 pmLaguna Dave, unless you can provide a link for the ballistics report from TxDPS labs, you have no idea if C. Sanchez was truthful or not, now do you?
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:23 pmAnd as to my ad hominem attack let me ask you a question: have you ever stood by a 19 year old’s hospital bedside hoping that the doctor’s can save their lives because they have overdosed on the products that OAD, and his bosses, deal in? Have you ever held the hand of a good friend while their child is lowered into the ground because of Mr. Davila’s and his ilk’s product?
I have. And I can tell you, it ain’t fun. Shooting this slug in the ass was too good for him. Personally, I think that every damn drug dealer should be give the death sentence because most of the time that is what they have given the people that use their products.
Let’s say that Ramos and Compean just didn’t give a damn about their jobs and let the guy go. Let’s say that the Border Patrol agents decide that having their careers ruined, their families driven into bankruptcy and being imprisoned for trying to prevent the corruption of American with drugs just ain’t worth it. Then what?
This case stinks. It is upside down. When the U.S. Attorney’s offices can locate drug smugglers to prosecute law enforcement officers but can’t seem to find illegals who come to our nation and kill law enforcement officers, I have a real problem with that. It doesn’t speak well of you that you don’t.
But then, I guess it also doesn’t bother you that the Mexican goverment seems to be running the policy of the Border Patrol and that these investigations are initiated at the bequest of the Mexican government.
Poor drug smuggler; he was just trying to earn a living for his poor sick mother. And Angel Resendez was just robbing people to help support his family back in Mexico.
Cry me a damn river. I’m sorry that Ramos was such a bad shot that he hit the drug runner in the butt.
Yes, that’s exactly the hypothetical line of questioning I was referring to.
Obviously everyone now knows, in light of facts revealed in the testimony, that there was a pursuit. The point is that Richards did not know on 2/17/05, because Ramos didn’t tell him. He could not file a report on a pursuit he didn’t know about, any more than he could file a report on the shooting he didn’t know about.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:25 pmThat’s not how I see it. If you back up a few pages, he appears to know it was a pursuit because of the radio communications. Once they quieted he went out to see what happened. How could he not know that they pursued OAD? It’s not like he stopped where they first saw him. His van was stopped at the lip of a ditch.
Your interpretation suggests that Richards didn’t realize they had to chase they guy.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:32 pmFor the purposes of discussing this case, the report was stipulated to by the defense, thus as far as the jury is concerned, and I am concerned, it is a proven fact. If the defense had any reason to doubt the report, they could have insisted on testimony from a witness, who they could have cross-examined.
No matter how violent your rhetoric, it does not turn a ridiculous argument into a sensible one.
And apparently it wouldn’t bother you if the Border Patrol carried out the sentences on the spot, without a trial, either.
Neither Ramos or Compean knew for a fact that OAD was smuggling drugs. They assumed. So it’s not just drug smugglers that the Border Patrol should execute without trial, but anyone merely suspected of smuggling, I guess.
– R. Penwell, A Man For All Seasons
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:39 pmOne more thing Laguna Dave,
Have you ever been a boss? I have for more than 8 years since I started my own business.
One thing that struck me about the testimony about and of Richards is the dearth of questions he asked. I learned a long time ago that I have to ask persistent and detailed questions of my employees to get to the bottom of any occurence.
The reasons are varied–but some of them relate to my employees fear of me because of my perceived perfectionism and hard-assness. I have to compensate for both my employees’ and my faults and weaknesses when investigating any incident.
Richards did not strike me as a good leader regarding his role in all this.
I may be a bitch, but I am a good leader because I recognize my faults and how they adversely impact my “troops”. I investigate accordingly.
Richards just let things happened–and he may have unwittingly telegraphed that he didn’t want any problems–thereby discouraging any reports about shooting a smuggler in the ass.l
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:48 pmMy typing is starting to get really bad.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:49 pmJerri Lynn Ward:
I know the feeling.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:53 pmDRJ,
I bet you know the feeling. You have done a yeoman’s job in summarizing these transcripts. My hat is off to you.
Some day, I’d like to know what small town it is you practice in. I’m jealous. I want to practice in a small town and to live on a ranch with a bunch of animals.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 9:58 pmIt appeared to be a fairly routine occurrence for them, didn’t it? I believe they seized 2-3 loads/week. Ramos appeared almost immediately and gave a selective report that painted a picture of normality, but actually omitted critical details. It seems likely that Ramos’s aim was precisely to head-off any inconvenient questions.
Should Richards have cross-examined Ramos to determine whether he was concealing something? Apparently yes, but why would he suspect anything out of the ordinary at the time? Shooting incidents, we know, were almost unheard-of in their sector.
Richards did:
1) Tell his guys “good job” for getting the load
2) Admonish them that they should also try to capture the smugglers
3) Admonish Ramos for not communicating updates as he should have
4) Ask Ramos whether Compean was OK
5) Ask Compean himself whether he was OK
6) Double check on Compean back at the station
7) Inquire whether Compean had been assaulted
8) Assign the agents some of the agents present to transport the load back to the station.
9) Tell Ramos to go fill out the I-44
Given that he no knowledge or expectation that a shooting had taken place, what else could he have been reasonably expected to do?
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/24/2007 @ 10:06 pmWhere I live, the ranches aren’t pretty like they are in your neighborhood but we do have cattle, rattlesnakes, and – especially today – dust.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 10:07 pmLaguna Dave,
Personally, I would have asked a point by point description of what exactly happened from the beginning. I have learned the necessity of doing such a thing from being a boss. Getting a load when a perp escapes and after a pursuit is not exactly an every day occurence from what I gather.
Further, admonishments are NOT a good way to encourage revelations of information from subordinates as I have learned the hard way. Nor is asking someone if they are OK. Most employees know that not being Ok is a pain in the neck to supervisors.
Personally, I would have sat down and asked things like:
What precipitated the chase?
What happened next?
What happened when you did this and this?
Not asking these kinds of questions, in my opinion, telegraphs to employees that you don’t care or don’t want to know.
Insofar as the questions about the assault–knowing men as I do–I don’t expect most of them to say they are not okay after a dustup. Especially if the answer involves a bunch of follwup questions or waiting for the FBI.
Women, on the other hand, generally enjoy the drama.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 10:25 pmDRJ,
If you are in West Texas, I would love to live on a ranch out there. If you know of any 50+ single ranchers, let me know. I might even learn to cook if there is a good one out there.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/24/2007 @ 10:28 pmJerri Lynn,
We can use good people like you so I’ll keep my eyes peeled.
DRJ (605076) — 2/24/2007 @ 11:00 pmJerri
Your post number 69 is exactly why the DHS investigated (the other law enforcement agency with the ICE-OPR and the OIG and the FBI) and are still investigating the Fabens post.
This isn’t over.
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/25/2007 @ 3:14 amI wonder what is the law that Compean and Ramos broke when they tried to stop a person that was fleeing after he was intercepted? We are at war and it seems to me that protecting the border during war time requires that deadly force by used if necessary to stop someone who is running away. I read the arguments and I am confused as to why some believe that Compean and Ramos are quilty of assault or worse.
Kay L Berry (0fd213) — 2/25/2007 @ 5:09 amThey did not break the law by trying to stop him. They broke the law by shooting at him while he was fleeing without sufficient cause, and then concealing or destroying the evidence of what they had done.
Then you should write your legislators and tell them to change the law so that Border Patrol agents are allowed to shoot people in the back at their own discretion and then destroy the evidence of what they’ve done so it can’t be investigated. At present the law is pretty clear that they can’t do that.
Although they were convicted of a number of charges, they were basically found guilty of two things:
1) Wrongfully shooting a person who posed no threat to them, and
2) Covering up what they did by failing to report it and destroying the evidence.
The defendants essentially admitted to #2. They also admitted to shooting at and wounding the person in question, but claimed that they saw a gun in his hand, so the use of deadly force was justified.
The illegal cover-up, and a number of other things they did and said, cast serious doubt on their claim that the shooting was justified. For instance, they never mentioned the gun they allegedly saw to anyone – fellow agents or supervisors – until almost a month later when they were arrested.
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/25/2007 @ 6:24 amLaguna Dave, not only do you have the ability to refuse to answer questions put to you, but you also seem to want to twist other’s statements. Where did I say that the BP should be allowed to shoot to kill drug dealers at the border? I didn’t and your lame attempt to try to twist my words is sorry. I said that all drug dealers should be give the same death sentence they impose on their customers. From that, you indicate I advocate vigilante justice. How convenient for your argument.
If the ballistics expert from TxDPS did not testify, that was a mistake on the part of the defense. And very smart on the part of the prosecution not to call that expert. So the ballistics report went unchallanged. And without the testimony, or a copy of the ballistics report, you are just puffing so much smoke about it. You are taking the word of a witness when you should be wondering why the ballistics was not entered as evidence.
You also said that Ramos/Compean spoke Spanish in their homes. Yet, you have failed to offer any proof of that statement.
You are accepting the testimony of OAD, who was given immunity and special treatment, of the other BP agents, who were given immunity after being threatened with prosecution themselves, and you think “well, that does it. They are guilty”.
If these men are guilty of anything it is trying to enforce our laws. Something that the Mexican Counsulate is making damn sure we don’t do.
I think every parent who loses a child to drugs that have been shipped across the Mexican border should have the right to sue the Mexican government for wrongful death becuase Mexico did nothing to prevent that shipment from entering our nation. I would go even further; until Mexico stops the flow of their unwanted into our nation and stops the flow of drugs from their side of the border, the American taxpayer should not be forced to support a program of American foreign aid that is given to Mexico.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:38 amGod help us if a illegal ever gets shot trying to smuggle a suitcase nuke across our southern border. He will probably own the whole state of Texas.
My suggestion to you, Dave. Move down there. Live in that war zone. Put up a security fence around you home so that you don’t get robbed, or worse, perhaps kidnapped, while you are your family are sleeping. Do that for about a year and then tell us how pro-illegal you are then.
There are a lot of things that the jury was led to believe were proven facts. That about sums up the controversy.
As for you, I’ve seen where you are willing to accept lots of things as proven fact that are neither proven nor fact. Do you believe Johnny Sutton’s “fact sheet” contains all facts? Do you believe it contanins any facts?
It is the government’s position that several bullets were fired at Davila with the intent to kill him. Ramos’s bullet accounted for one out the several but they went to him and told him it was his bullet that wounded the dope smuggler.
Since Ramos would have been under the impression that the Department of Homeland Security would have no reason to misrepresent the evidence, he accepted their lie as fact.
If the Bush Team had gone to Compean first and lied to him that the bullet came from his Beretta and if Compean would have accepted their lie as fact–What crime would Ramos be guilty of?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:51 amJ. Curtis, if it was Ramos’ bullet that shot Davila, then how is Compean guilty of attempted murder? And why was Compean given 11 years for firing at a criminal?
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:54 amLaguna Dave, is obviously pro-illegal drug smuggler and I am sure will be very happy when Davila is awarded his $5 million settlement. When that happens, you can look for Rene Sanchez to move back to Mexico within six months.
Questioning the ballistics would have insulted the jury’s intelligence. Big no-no. They would have come back with a guilty on the attempted murder after that.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:00 amAnd stipulations ARE
lc (1401be) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:02 amI’m sorry, I pressed too soon.
Stipulations are evidence.
lc (1401be) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:02 amThe same exact one he was convicted of.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:04 am“For the purposes of discussing this case, the report was stipulated to by the defense, thus as far as the jury is concerned, and I am concerned, it is a proven fact.”
It may be a “proven fact” in the context of the “game” of trial, but is it the transcedent truth?
Sutton represented that there was a second ballistics test done, so perhaps it showed the bullet came from Ramos’s gun.
The thing about the “game”, is that if there was never any conclusive proof that it came from Ramos’s gun, I don’t know how that would help Ramos upon appeal, because of the stipulation. If the bullet were to be tested now and compared to Ramos’s gun and found not to be a match, I’m not sure that even that would help upon appeal.
That would be newly discovered evidence, but isn’t there some rule or case law about diligence on the part of the defendant in such circumstances?
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:07 amHe’s not. BOTH agents were acquitted on that charge.
There were many posts yesterday regarding the verdicts. I’m trying to track down the jury instructions [or their closest approximation, anyway] and I imagine we’ll discuss the verdicts some more.
But the fact of the acquittals on attempted murder is old news.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:08 amJerri Lynn – Why would it have helped to contest the ballistics?
Like I said, I think it would offend the jury if there were some kind of “shooter on the grassy knoll” defense.
Stipulating was the right thing to do.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:11 am“Jerri Lynn – Why would it have helped to contest the ballistics?”
I don’t know if it would have helped. My understanding is that the first test only gave general information regarding the type of weapon the bullet came from. I don’t recall that the lab had Ramos’s gun then.
If there was a followup test which conclusively linked Ramos’s gun, then I totally agree with you.
If there was never a test conclusively linking Ramos’s gun, do you still believe that a stipulation was the right thing to do? I don’t know enough about ballistics to judge.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:17 amLet’s think about that.
Ramos hears a gunfight over the levee where he can’t see who is doing the shooting.
Ramos knows there is one border agent involved and at least one suspect. He can’t presume that a border agent is firing at an unarmed man or shooting for any other reason except that agent feels his life is in danger.
Ramos runs to the scene where he can only be under the impression that a fellow agent’s life is in danger.
I’m sure we can all agree that this is Ramos’s state of mind and point of view at this point and the smuggler backers will admit that Ramos has not committed a crime yet. Right?
At what point does this all change and Ramos becomes deserving of a prison cell?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/25/2007 @ 9:13 amJ. Curtis, basically, Ramos and Compean are guilty of thwarting the Bush administration’s policy of open borders.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/25/2007 @ 9:22 amSo now a clear message has been sent to all law enforcement officers; never mind if you think the perp has a gun, just be sure that you are being fired upon before you fire, that is, if you are still able to fire and not severely wounded or dead.
I’ve said that I would have run Ramos’ defense much differently. I would have distanced Ramos as much as possible from Compean and would have emphasized that for all he knew he was hearing an exchange of gunfire and couldn’t have known that it was really just Compean unloading. I would have tried to reduce Ramos’ participation down to split-seconds by comparison to the minutes of pursuit and multiple engagements Compean claimed happened between he and Aldrete.
That said, nothing explains Ramos’ behavior after the incident. And the failure to report is evidence of a consciousness of guilt.
All these guys had to do was say “shiny object” to someone on the day of the shooting and this case wouldn’t even exist. But Compean doesn’t say it until three months later when he’s arrested. And Ramos says nothing about it until almost a year later when he testifies. The fact that they didn’t say anything about it at the time makes the “shiny object” look more like a convenient invention than anything that really existed. Again, “Holy shit! The guy looked like he had a gun!” is the more credible reaction. Silence among your fellow agents just doesn’t make sense.
Also, don’t forget that the two jurors who expressed regret about their verdicts did not think the agents were not guilty of intentionally failing to report the shooting, concealing evidence and obstructing the investigation.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 10:32 am“But Compean doesn’t say it until three months later when he’s arrested.”
Actually, he said it at approximately 1am the night that he was interrogated ONE month later. It’s in his written statement. But, I assume your point is that there was no testimony from the other agents that he said it to them prior to the arrest.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 10:39 amTracy,
If you’d just take the timeline from where I left off and point to the moment that Ramos becomes deserving of a prison cell. Thanks.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/25/2007 @ 10:40 amMy mistake, Jerri Lynn. I didn’t realize that the agents were arrested in March. I thought it wasn’t until at least mid-April, which still put me one month off in my “three months” statement.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 10:48 amJ Curtis – Unless Ramos can REASONABLY explain why it took a year to say the words “shiny object” then the moment occurs when he pulled the trigger.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 10:59 amAnother BP recently fired on a car that was heading in his direction as if to run over him. The vehicle contained drugs and one of the illegals was injured.
retire05 (b7fd38) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:07 amHow long before this officer is also prosecuted and the illegals get a hefty settlement from our government?
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/170871
Tracy,
In April, Compean participated in an administrative proceeding where he was challenging his suspension. It was made clear that he would not give testimony during the first session–that was left to his union rep. During the second, Barron focused mainly on the assault on Compean and his alleged failure to report that. Compean did state why he failed to report the shooting during that second hearing:
“…I knew that we were going to get in trouble because the way—the way it’s been at the station the last two…three years…uhh…I mean everything comes down to the alien. The agents are as soon as anything comes up…it’s always..always the agent’s fault. We’re always the ones who get in trouble.”
In the past week or so, Barron told the press that, if Compean had seen a shiny object, he should have told Barron during the hearing. I thought this was dreadfully unfair given the timing and circumstances of the hearing. Compean had already given that statement to DHS and the circumstances being probed by Barron had to do mainly with the assault–not the shooting.
Perhaps that’s where you got the April date. The transcripts for that hearing are posted here.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:10 am“J Curtis – Unless Ramos can REASONABLY explain why it took a year to say the words “shiny object” then the moment occurs when he pulled the trigger.”
I attributed this to Ramos’s more intelligent decision not to talk to the DHS after Compean was arrested SWAT style.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:13 amJerri Lynn – I should be the last person to criticize someone for asserting their right not to incriminate themselves. [Let’s leave aside that the words “shiny object” are not incriminating…]
Still, it absolutely defies credulity that neither of these agents told anyone at the time, “Dang! It looked like the guy had a gun!” As I said above, their failure to do so is what got them convicted.
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:22 amSince the agent who fired on people throwing rocks at him was recently cleared, I doubt someone who is about to be run down by a car will be too and thus will never be charged.
[Note that both these agents reported the shooting immediately after it occurred.]
Tracy (b404ed) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:27 amTracy,
If he didn’t talk to DHS, who should he have said that to other than his attorney? I agree that the fact there is no testimony about Ramos saying to his fellow agents, “dang, that guy had a gun!” is a problem. But, the period of a year after the shooting doesn’t bother me, because he was lawyered up.
I keep wondering if both agents thought the guy was armed–each for different reasons–and then second-guessed themselves on that point soon after the discharge of the weapons.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:36 amJerri Lynn:
Re outlining the objective evidence pointing towards guilt — not necessary.
I’ll tell you exactly what convicted Ramos and Compean — their own testimony and Compean’s first written statement in his own words.
Why? Because their testimony lacked credibility, and the jury concluded they weren’t telling the truth. Once the jury got to that point, case over.
If the prosecutor can successfully show that the defendant is continuing to lie right up to the witness stand, and the prosecutor has evidence of “consciousness of guilt” like picking up the shell casings and never recording one time in any official report that a firearm was discharged, and then admitting in a statement that you didn’t report it because you didn’t want to get in trouble — game over. That’s a 99.9% conviction rate even if the jury isn’t happy about having to do it.
Re the verdicts on assualt v. attempted murder — there is some dissonance there, but I’m 100% sure its a jury nullification issue, and I’m 100% sure the Fifth Circuit won’t have a problem with the inconsistency.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:37 amMy two-word rebuttal: Gilmer Hernandez.
thirteen28 (1da714) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:42 amwls,
I think that you are correct in your analysis as to why the jury did what it did.
I need to study Compean’s testimony a little more, but I don’t find Ramos’s testimony to be not credible on the issue about what he perceived at the time he fired. I believe that there are other reasonable explanations for the failure to report–but, as you will probably point out, they are most likely not found in the record.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:46 amJerri
Tracy,
I believe that I am stubborn about this case because I want these guys to be pardoned. I believe that they won’t win upon appeal as you and Laguna Dave have so eloquently demonstrated. That said, I am still not convinced that they knew OAD did not have a gun.
Comment by Jerri Lynn Ward — 2/24/2007 @ 8:14 pm
WLS (5c4702) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:49 amTracy,
Just for this discussion, let’s agree that Ramos was in violation of BP policy when he failed to report the discharge. Further, let’s separate Ramos’ failure to report the discharge of his weapon from the claim that he wrongfully assaulted Aldrete-Davila, although I will revisit that issue.
First, is Ramos’ failure to report the discharge conclusive proof that Ramos wrongfully assaulted Aldrete-Davila or is it rebuttable proof? I think it’s rebuttable proof and, if you agree, does it help Ramos that he promptly provided a justification for shooting Aldrete-Davila when he was first confronted with a claim that he did something wrong (and since I haven’t read Ramos’ testimony, I’m relying on comments here that that is what he did)?
Second, I think your point is that Ramos’ failure to report proves that he was covering up something he knew was wrong. A jury could reasonably agree with you but I think it’s also possible that Ramos’ failure to report was … a failure to report, especially since he didn’t cover up when he was questioned about the details of the incident. In other words, I’m considering whether it’s reasonably possible that Ramos believed he didn’t need to justify or explain his actions at the time but, when combined with his failure to report and Compean’s questionable conduct, became a perfect storm that led to his conviction.
Third, let’s assume Ramos and Compean did agree to cover up the shooting – either because they wanted to avoid the paperwork or because they knew their conduct was unjustified. It’s possible they collectively or individually chose to erect a wall of silence, but how could they both be sure no one heard the gunfire? If it came up, I guess they could claim it was unrelated gunfire from hunters or the Mexican military but apparently they didn’t make that claim, suggesting that wasn’t part of the cover up.
It seems to me Ramos and Compean had to know that, while the other agents might not have seen what happened at the vega, they could have heard the gunshots. So if there really was a cover up, why didn’t Ramos and Compean try to explain the one thing – the gunshots – that would have been known to the other agents?
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:57 amGilmar Hernandez looks guilty to me. His case is not a rebuttal to the cases where the agents shot at people throwing rocks at them or people coming at them with a car. Once more for emphasis: You can’t shoot at fleeing criminal. A reckless discharge conviction here is a well-founded.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 11:57 am“This turns the test upside down. Its not a question of whether they “knew OAD did not have a gun” but rather that they “had reasonable cause to believe that OAD DID have a gun”.
I agree, my comment was worded in a clumsy manner.
Your theory about Compean sounds like a reasonable theory.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:05 pmTracy and WLS,
What is the criminal law standard for someone (possibly like Ramos) who finds a fellow officer shooting at a suspect. Is he entitled to believe the first officer is justified in shooting and do the same, or must he independently ascertain the danger before shooting?
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:06 pmI gotta run. Literally. I’ve been spending way too much of my free time here with you guy. Not that I don’t enjoy the company. 🙂
But as to the above, there was no propmt justification. Ramos didn’t give any explanation until he testified at trial.
I’ll get back to you on the rest.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:06 pmOkay. One more. God, this place is like an addiction…
I don’t think there’s a presumption of any kind. But I think you could use the facts as presented to raise reasonable doubt. As I’ve said before, that would have been my defense theory if Ramos was my client: That he assumed he was hearing mutual gunfire and made a split second decision to help his fellow agent. I know you haven’t read that far in the transcript, but he’s only briefly crossed on the sounds of the guns.
Now I’m really outta here for awhile.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:22 pmI did not get much response re my query on border protection during a declared state of war. I doubt that citizens would have to request new legislation. I recall that a declaration of war gives the President emergency powers to do what he thinks necessary to protect our country. He could issue orders to the Border Patrol to stop all persons trying to cross illegally and if they dont stop then shoot to kill. Would not matter if they were armed or not. Has he issued any orders re the border patrol rules of engagement during state of war? If no orders have been issued are there any automatic changes due to the Declaration of War? Certainly the BP agents know we are at war and it must affect their thinking.
Kay L Berry (0fd213) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:26 pmTracy #107,
I know you’re gone but when you get back (or WLS, if you can respond), I’m not talking about a presumption. I’m interested in whether there is a rule or standard that governs an officer’s justification for shooting in the defense/aid of another. Is it the same standard for all officers regardless of the circumstances?
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:46 pm“I’m interested in whether there is a rule or standard that governs an officer’s justification for shooting in the defense/aid of another.”
Isn’t it a “reasonable belief” that another will be injured or killed if the suspect is not neutralized?
Is this similar to the Amadou Dialla case where all the officers opened fire because one thought he saw a gun and yelled “gun”? Those guys were acquitted. Of course, Dialla wasn’t running away.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:59 pmKay L Berry,
I understand your point – that we are at war and the President should secure our borders. Personally, I agree that he should do that and it’s tempting to address that issue in the context of this Border Patrol case.
However, I think your comment raises legal and Constitutional issues that can’t be appropriately addressed here. Just as there are more restrictions on a President’s powers to conduct surveillance and intelligence-gathering in the US than in a foreign country, whether or not we are at war, there are also limits on what law enforcement can do within US borders. Thus, the President can’t take the Border Patrol and give it quasi-military powers and duties just because we are at war.
I agree it’s a problem in a theoretical and a practical sense. I believe that America’s offensive strategy is to take the fight to our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. Defensively, here at home, the Border Patrol is our first defense in this war. Legally, however, it’s not that easy.
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 12:59 pmWhether Ramos actually saw a shiny object or lied about seeing a shiny object and whether Davila had a gun in his hand, had no gun at all or stuck the gun back in his wasteband; Ramos is not guilty for the shoot under any of those circumstances.
Now, since the reporting or lack of reporting is such an important aspect to some people, even as it’s obvious that Ramos’s mind was appropriately focused on the threat to his fellow border agent, let me ask this question:
How much jail time should Ramos have received if all the circumstances of this incident were the same except that Ramos never fired his weapon when he got to the scene and Davila never ended up with a bullet in his behind?
How much jail time should Agent Compean have received under those same set of circumstances?
Note: That Davila would have almost certainly never came forward with a complaint should be irrelevant for the purpose of answering these questions.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/25/2007 @ 1:10 pm57
14 shots (with a magazine exchange) seems like too many for warning shots.
It is certainly legitimate to ask why Compean was 0/14 while Ramos was 1/1 when Compean appears to have been shooting from closer range. There was testimony that Ramos was a good shot and Compean was a poor shot so perhaps that is all there is to it.
Alternatively perhaps Compean was too mad to shoot straight. Or since Compean made a point of denying he had dirt in his eyes perhaps he did and couldn’t see a thing. Or as I suggested in a comment to an earlier post perhaps Compean was shooting with the intent of scaring OAD.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/25/2007 @ 1:57 pmThe constitutional standard which allows officers to use deadly force to apprehend suspects requires “probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm…to the officer or to others…” and if deadly force “is necessary” to effect the apprehension. “Dangerousness” was defined by example: “…if the
suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm…,” the officer reasonably could conclude that the suspect is dangerous. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 11.
Circumstances, i.e, context and the persepctive of a “reasonable officer” are considered: The “objective reasonableness” as the appropriate standard for evaluating a police officer’s use of force is in the context of making an arrest or other seizure of a person. The standard is “not capable of precise definition or mechanical application” and the issue is one of “reasonableness at the moment….” The assessment is limited to “…the facts and circumstances confronting [officers]…judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Graham v. Connor (1989)490 U.S. 386, 396-397.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 2:59 pmYou’re a good teacher, Tracy, and I appreciate the effort it took to post your last comment. I know how hard it is to synthesize and summarize a legal standard as you just did.
Even though Compean and Ramos were involved in the same incident, I interpret that to mean we could decide Ramos acted reasonably in shooting at Aldrete-Davila even if Compean didn’t. Is that right?
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 3:17 pmI’d’ve run Ramos’ defense that way.
If you read all of lc’s comments on this thread – I think she has the best take on the case – both factually and with regard to how the case was defended – is entirely apt.
Court reporters and bailiffs are watching all of us day in and day out. They’re the best judges of our abilities and the things we do that work as well as the things that don’t.
I think lc nailed it with regard to the Compean and Ramos cases.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 3:57 pm105
I don’t think it is that easy for Ramos to separate himself from Compean. Ramos testified first, if he throws Compean under the bus I expect Compean would have returned the favor when he testified which wouldn’t have done either much good.
If Ramos wants to go his own way I think he has to take a plea and testify against Compean. This probably means some jail time but that is his reward for helping Compean cover up in the first place.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/25/2007 @ 4:13 pmTracy and James B.,
I believe I understand your points and how you get to your bottom line/s. I think there is a difference between trial strategy and legal analysis. Tracy, I know you’ve addressed both with great insight and I appreciate that, but so far I don’t see this verdict as inevitable as a matter of law.
BTW Tracy, I agree that LC has valuable insight and is an excellent example of the adage that smart lawyers listen to court clerks and court reporters.
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 5:54 pmI don’t think he was suggesting “throwing Compean under the bus”. I think he meant Compean did what he did for his own reasons, and Ramos did what he did, perhaps for different reasons.
That works for the shooting itself, but the cover-up is, if anything, harder for Ramos to explain, since he was more senior, had trained people on the policy, was well-familiar with the evidence handling procedures, and had the opportunity to report it moments after the incident.
Ramos couldn’t really have testified to much about Compean’s shooting, since he didn’t see any of it. And although we don’t know for sure, it seems a lot more likely to me that Ramos, as the more experienced agent, probably initiated the cover-up rather than being drawn into it by the relatively junior Compean.
Someone mentioned a while ago that the defendants were offered a plea – does anybody know what it was?
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:07 pmThey were offered 18 months and adjudication
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:33 pmTracy and DRJ,
I found something interesting regarding this:
The Texas Penal Code says this about the use of force by peace officers:
§ 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH.
…..
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would
have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a
substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is
delayed.
Number 1 interests me because of Ramos’s position that he thought Compean was in danger and thought there was an exchange of gunfire.
I know that they were tried under Federal law. Is there anything similar to 1 in Federal law?
Tracy, what do you think?
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/25/2007 @ 7:47 pmWhat does “adjudication” mean? I know the word, obviously, but not in this context. Probation?
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:37 pmI think the whole thing is basically a restatement/codification of Tennessee v. Garner.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:43 pmNote to self: No physicists on my juries.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/25/2007 @ 8:49 pmLagunaDave,
I’ve heard of sentences that provide for “__ months/years and deferred adjudication” but only in Texas state courts. Texas criminal law provides for deferred adjudication as an option in some cases. Basically, a plea bargain agreement is entered into between a defendant and the criminal court whereby final judgment is “deferred” or withheld until the end of the probation period. If a defendant is given deferred adjudication and s/he successfully completes the probation and conditions assigned by the court, the charges are dismissed.
I don’t know if there is anything similar in federal court but I don’t believe there is, or at least I’ve never heard of it. That makes me wonder if the plea offer is more rumor than fact.
DRJ (605076) — 2/25/2007 @ 10:45 pm108
How do you know Ramos didn’t see Compean shooting? I suspect otherwise.
James B. Shearer (5d0b1a) — 2/26/2007 @ 12:40 amEveryone re “deferred adjudication”.
In federal court its called a “deferred entry of judgment.” The defendant is sentenced to a term of probation, but the “Judgment and Conviction” is not entered by the Court as a final order. If the person successfully completes the probation period without incident, the defendant can move to have the entire proceeding dismissed, if the prosecutor agreed at the time of plea to such an arrangement.
A deferred entry of judgment cannot be entered into in federal court without the agreement of the prosecution, though I am aware that it can be done by the judge on his/her own in many states.
But, that said, in my experience, deferred entries of judgment are almost never used. I’ve used it once in 14 years, and it was a very minor case involving a very young defendant without any prior criminal history. The decision was made to not saddle the person with a felony record if that person completed 3 years probation without incident.
I do not think the charges in this case are something that the prosecutor would have offered a deferred entry of judgment on.
As I understand it, the plea offer was to plead guilty to the assault and obstruction, with a prosecution recommendation of 18 months, and the “discharge of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence” count would not have been added. I think that count was only added after the defendants refused the plea offer. That particular count carries a 10 year MANDATORY sentence that must run consecutive to any other sentence imposed on another conviction.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/26/2007 @ 12:52 amAll the hand-wringing here over whether Ramos saw Compean shooting and whether that was sufficient justification for Ramos to shoot even if he didn’t see a weapon, etc., really misses the point.
Ramos told his version of events. The jury didn’t believe him.
He said he saw a gun — the jury didn’t believe him.
He could have said he was in fear for Compean’s life — but the jury wouldn’t have believed that either.
One key prosecution tactic in a case where you know the defendant is going to take the stand is to establish on the stand that the defendant is/has lied.
Once you have done that, then you have given the jury all the justification they need to disregard the balance of the defendant’s exculpatory testimony — why should they believe that to be true?
Its truly the exception when you spend hours working over a defendant on cross-exam — its just not necessary and it only gives the defendant more chances to offer up his explanation of events.
I’m not interested in trying to disprove the defense version of events. I’m going to rely on my evidence to prove the case I have laid out, and then I’m going to establish that the defendant is a liar in one or more meaningful respects. Then I’m going to dare the to acquit someone who has admitted to lying to them — not in so many words.
On the specific question of what justification Ramos would have needed, I’m certain that every officer who discharges a firearm must have made his own reasonable determination that his life or the life of others is at risk. Its not enough that one officer is firing. Its not a defense to say “He was firing and I assumed he had good cause to do so.” Use of deadly force against another person is the most extreme form of self-defense/defense of another. Each officer has to get it right on their own. It was up to Ramos to made an independent determination that Compean or himself were at risk, not simply come up guns blazing because Compean has emptied a magazine at a fleeing suspect.
WLS (5c4702) — 2/26/2007 @ 1:05 amI meant according to their testimony.
Ramos said Compean was on the ground (Compean said on one knee reloading) and that he ran past him.
Also, Ramos certainly could not have seen the first “shiny object” that Compean claimed caused him to start shooting, because Ramos was in the ditch when the first shots were fired (that was confirmed by Juarez, I believe).
LagunaDave (cb0e49) — 2/26/2007 @ 1:08 amWhatever the term, initially, they said yes to time served in suspended from duty and would spend about a year incarerated and then get their records so that they could actually return to law enforcement.
Personally, never go to court with a brandished and fired weapon, you don’t need 25 years of legal experience to know that.
but it would have saved us this shameful episode of intelligent people on both sides arguing the merits of two people who did the wrong thing at the wrong time in the wrong way.
Sad really….
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/26/2007 @ 1:17 amJust some reported links on the plea bargin
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22273.html
It is way beyond the reported plea bargain the prosecutor offered of 1 year each if they plead guilty. They both refused to take the plea because they both insisted on their innocence. They believed the justice system would exonerate them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070212-091022-6073r.htm
For his part, Mr. Sutton offered both agents a plea bargain with a one-year sentence. But at trial, the U.S. Probation Office sought 20-year sentences
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/26/2007 @ 3:11 am“Whatever the term, initially, they said yes to time served in suspended from duty and would spend about a year incarerated and then get their records so that they could actually return to law enforcement.”
I wonder why they didn’t take this.
Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6) — 2/26/2007 @ 5:50 amJerri
And Gilmer was offered PROBATION 6 months off and he would be back in uniform!!!!!
Weird……
I guess, no one figured the mandatory tenner was an issue….
Are you going to Gilmers sentencing?
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/26/2007 @ 6:40 amAlso
TJ Bonner commented heavily on this – I cannot imagine the circus, the fear, the uncertainty and the whirlwind of media that this case created interfering with Ramos and Compeans state of minds to make difficult decisions.
Not trying to fit an excuse but I was following the case from day one – there was the typical low level blip on the radar – especially when ramos problems with the law before had surfaced and then the Union nominated him for Patrolment of the year to force this issue into the media spotlight
In my opinion this was a stupid maneuver to gain union support and notariety at the expense of these two getting a sweet plea bargin agreement.
Really its a tough call for me to make but they were guilty, they did deserve their punishment, but they also had an out and politics kept them from taking it.
but this is all just my opinion
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/26/2007 @ 6:48 amWhen considering the state of mind of the defendants, we should only concern ourselves with the motive that they “wanted to shoot some Mexicans” on that day. Is that about right?
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/26/2007 @ 7:31 amEric,
I’d like to but I’m not sure I can.
I didn’t realize that these men might have been able to get their jobs back. I thought they’d be ruined for life.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/26/2007 @ 7:50 amWell,
Its still not a good mark for them they certainly would have to leave Federal service but being able to look for local sheriff work and county LEO would have been more than feasible.
But Jerri, honestly this is all subjective, but I always felt they were pawns the minute they nominated Ramos for Patrolmen of the year knowing he had three arrests, sentenced twice to anger management and had this shooting hanging over his head, that also may have influenced Sutton to not backburner this.
What they (the congressmen and the Union) did was inexcusable but so was AED’s behavior. They had a way out shut for them by parties more interested in winning a point and political capital than honestly doing what was best for the two BP’s.
Thanks for the week of great discussion.
Take care.
EricPWJohnson (405d78) — 2/26/2007 @ 10:28 am“What they (the congressmen and the Union) did was inexcusable but so was AED’s behavior. They had a way out shut for them by parties more interested in winning a point and political capital than honestly doing what was best for the two BP’s.”
You make an excellent point. There are some issues that bother me such as immunity to a drug dealer, pressure from Mexico etc. etc..
But these individuals lives matter more. If they turned down really good offers in the face of overwhelming odds because others ginned them up and made them think they had a chance, that’s just horrible.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion as well.
Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57) — 2/26/2007 @ 10:43 am118
Juarez testified (dubiously) that he did not see Ramos at the scene until he returned from across the ditch after the shooting. Vasquez (p. 89) specifically denied any pause before the last shot.
Ramos and Compean may have testified differently but their testimony was not credible. If Ramos had taken a plea he could have told a different story which implicated Compean about both the shooting and the aftermath.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/26/2007 @ 7:04 pmCompean was shooting at the ground to make the felony flyer of unknown origin give up. This is why the smuggler was seeing puffs of dirt on the ground.
Compean is a short guy and Davila is tall. If Compean was shooting to kill the smuggler the bullets wouldn’t be hitting the dirt.
If you have a problem with Compean firing several warning shots to make the smuggler surrender, let me ask you this: Would you feel differently about it if the running felon was a blonde haired gringo fleeing to Mexico?
Putting yourself in Compean’s place, would you have made a presumption that the smuggler had been to Mexico at some point in his life? I wouldn’t have, I would have done at least as much as Compean did to get this guy to surrender.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/26/2007 @ 8:42 pm129
14 is a lot of warning shots. I think an intent to scare and speed OAD on his way back to Mexico is more credible. Perhaps Compean had done this before which would explain why Juarez and Vasquez were strangely unconcerned about hearing gunshots.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 2/26/2007 @ 9:07 pm130
Compean was going to have to explain why he allowed a Texan who was fleeing from law enforcement to escape into Mexico. He wanted to arrest the suspect.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/27/2007 @ 7:46 amWarning shots are not permissible under any use of force policy. You just won’t find a law enforcement agency that says otherwise. The only exception is that some prisons allow warning shots on prison grounds.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/27/2007 @ 8:59 amMaybe so but there were extenuating circumstances, not the least of which was a line in the sand where pursuit can’t be continued. That is a situation that other law enforcers never will face and can continue pursuit from all directions.
You just can’t have a policy where law enforcement officers must stand there and watch while US citizens escape to another country while in the act of a felony. It entirely subverts the concept of law and law enforcement.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/27/2007 @ 9:48 amAldrete was a US Citizen? Are we still talking about Aldrete – or did I miss some veer in the comments here?
Only Jack Bauer gets away with the extenuating circumstances thing. The rest of the cops have to follow the law like everyone else. You can’t shoot at a fleeing felon. Not even warning shots. Not legal.
Tracy (4b4242) — 2/27/2007 @ 5:46 pmIn real time perspective? Yes. In hindsight perspective? They say he isn’t.
The guy was fleeing to Mexico with Texas plates. How do you get to assume that he’s an illegal alien?
Compean saw the van first and reported it. He would know better than anyone that the driver was not in Mexico that day.
Even if you believe the prosecution’s preposterous, asinine and psychotic lie that Davila walked from Mexico across the river to some van that magically appeared at that spot out of nowhere; Compean would have had to be under the assumption that the driver was a Texan since the van began the adventure from Texas, not Mexico.
J Curtis (d21251) — 2/27/2007 @ 9:29 pmFrom page 17 of the DHS report:
This clearly states that the crime laboratory eliminated all other guns on the planet as the possible weapon that shot the bullet, including Compean’s Beretta, and stipulated that the bullet was fired by that one specific gun with that specific serial number.
If it turns out that the DHS is lying about the ballistic report, then Ramos would have stipulated to a government lie.
If the government charges a sleepwalker with murder and tells the sleepwalker that they have video of him committing the crime and he confesses based on that evidence which he assumes to be truthful and with his realization that he is known to sleepwalk and not be aware of his actions while in that condition, the sleepwalker’s confession cannot still stick once it’s determined that the basis for the confession was a lie.
The Ramos “stipulation” is analogous to the sleepwalker example because there was no way that he could say with certainty that it wasn’t his bullet and there was no way he could say with certainty that it was his bullet.
J Curtis (d21251) — 3/9/2007 @ 4:22 pm