4/17/2008

31 Responses to “Aldrete-Davila Pleads Guilty to Drug Smuggling”

1. What is wrong with these prosecutors? Don’t they remember that he was only trying to feed his family? And that most residents of El Paso are drug smugglers, too?

   nk (6b7d4f) — 4/17/2008 @ 9:43 pm

   
   

2. If I were the judge, and if I were in a whimsical mood, I would order the prosecution’s closing argument from Ramos-Compean be included in the presentencing report.

   nk (6b7d4f) — 4/17/2008 @ 9:45 pm

   
   

3. Free Compean and Ramos and add the remainder or their sentences onto Davila’s, to be served in a Mexican prison! Or better yet, Guantanamo!

   Sutton remains a close relative to Nifong!

   TC (d16524) — 4/17/2008 @ 10:12 pm

   
   

4. I guess the real question is “What repercussions will this have on the appeal for Ramos and Compean?”

   Can we now at least agree that the prosecution should have known that their witness was lying when he was on the stand testifying that he was a simple man just trying to earn money to pay for medicine for his sick mother? What ethical obligation does a prosecutor have when he hears his star witness lying on the stand? Should the prosecution have allowed him to testify if they suspected that he was committing perjury? Why were perjury charges not pressed when it came out at that he was not the innocent that he was claiming when testifying against the two officers?

   And again, since the testimony of the only witness who was there, other than Ramos and Compean, is now known to be tainted, how can the judicial system justify keeping these two men locked up?

   And Since all of the others who testified against the two agents have now been fired or have quite for lying under oath, and other offenses related to this fiasco, can anyone truly believe that these men got a fair trial?

   And last, does anyone have any idea why it has taken 4 1/2 months with no ruling from the 5th Circuit? Isn’t this a little unusual since the ruling was supposed to be handed down within 60 days?

   Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 4/17/2008 @ 10:43 pm

   
   

5. Jay Curtis,

   I think the 5th Circuit judges were told about Aldrete-Davila’s arrest during argument and they obviously knew he was a drug smuggler because he admitted it at the Ramos-Compean trial. So if that was going to have an impact on their decision, they don’t need a guilty plea to make that happen.

   In addition, I’m not sure why you believe there is a 60 day deadline for appellate decisions. In the 5th Circuit, decisions can take months to a year or more, and I think it’s the same in other circuits. I hope the Ramos-Compean decision is handed down soon but I’m not surprised it hasn’t been published yet.

   Here is the link to the 5th Circuit Opinions website and you can check it everyday (like I do) for the Ramos-Compean decisions.

   DRJ (a431ca) — 4/17/2008 @ 10:55 pm

   
   

6. “I’m not sure why you believe there is a 60 day deadline for appellate decisions.”

   I foolishly believed the statements in the news coverage that stated the court had 60 days to issue a ruling. That will teach me to believe what I read and hear in the news papers and on television.

   Any comments of the ethics questions? I am not a lawyer and really don’t understand what is considered ethical and what is not in the legal profession. As a common, uneducated rube, I have my opinions of what those ethics should be but don’t know how my feelings measure up against the legal ethics standards.

   Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 4/17/2008 @ 11:07 pm

   
   

7. Jay Curtis,

   I wasn’t aware the media had said that but, then, I don’t watch the media much anymore. I hope I didn’t sound critical because it was a good question. I’ve had civil cases appealed to the 5th Circuit and spent a lot of time speculating with clients about how long the decision might take.

   As for the ethical issues, I don’t want to speculate about what everyone knew or didn’t know in the Ramos-Compean case. However, in general, attorneys cannot let a client or witness perjure themselves on the stand. If the attorney knows the party has lied, the attorney has to encourage the party to correct the record or, if that fails, apprise the court and probably withdraw as counsel.

   Apart from the conflicting testimony about what happened the day Aldrete-Davila was shot, the main problem for Ramos & Compean wasn’t that Aldrete-Davila perjured himself but that he didn’t testify about anything other than what happened that day. Defendants wanted to question Aldrete-Davila about other days/activities but they were prohibited from doing so in front of the jury and (as I recall) because Aldrete-Davila invoked the privilege against self-incrimination. I think defendants were allowed to question other witnesses about Aldrete-Davila’s so-called “second load” but we don’t know what the testimony was because it was sealed. The 5th Circuit has that testimony, so in that sense they know more than we do.

   DRJ (a431ca) — 4/17/2008 @ 11:31 pm

   
   

8. DJR, I didn’t take the question as criticism. Many of the news reports on Dec. 4 last year included the line “A decision is expected in 4 to 6 weeks”. Several more used the phrase “within 60 days”.

   Thanks for clarifying the rules and expectations for me.

   I have also been checking the 5th circuit opinions page on a daily basis. From my perspective, keeping these two in solitary confinement with all the restrictions that apply to the very worst of prisoners falls into the category “cruel and unusual” punishment.

   I would expect that a person kept in solitary for their protection should at least be exempted from the restrictions on showers and books. And shouldn’t they be afforded the same access to telephones and visitors that other prisoners are afforded? It’s not like they caused the problems in the prison or were put in solitary for being a troublemaker.

   Or maybe I just feel the need to tilt at windmills….

   Somehow it just bothers me that Aldrete will not have to spend his prison time in a similar level of discomfort. And he will probably get out sooner than the two officers will. Does he still get the settlement money from the civil suite since he has plead guilty to these crimes? Probably does. While the officers are bankrupt, unemployable and missing out on the life of their children. Seems like the legal system got this one wrong.

   Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 4/18/2008 @ 12:21 am

   
   

9. I believe Aldrete lied
   I believe Sutton knew he would lie.
   I believe Sutton encouraged him to lie.
   I believe Sutton suborned his perjury.
   The convictions should be set aside and Sutton should be prosecuted for his misconduct.

   Ken Hahn (7742d5) — 4/18/2008 @ 1:00 am

   
   

10. Normally, it would take 60 days in most cases, However, think of how complex this case is and how much publicity it has gotten. Im sure the judges in new Orleans are taking their time to cross every T and dot every I.
    I heard an interview with Tara Setmayer on Roger hedgecock’s Radio show (KOGO San Diego) thursday and she said she has been told by some very reliable sources that the US Government wanted a guilty plea or a plea deal so that nothing related to the Ramos and Compean case would be made public by a trial.
    Also on Thursday on John and Ken Radio show (KFI Los Angeles), Sara Carter of the Washington post and Monica Ramos were guests and talked about this, too. You might want to take time and listen to them and see what all they said.

    James (97fafb) — 4/18/2008 @ 1:39 am

    
    

11. Bush better pardon Ramos and Compean when leaving office. If he doesn’t, I will have lost all faith in the Republican party. And, yes, I will blame the Republican party along with Bush because if they can’t or won’t convince Bush on this one, how can I ever expect them to represent the citizens of the United States of America in the future.

    dianne (e5d154) — 4/18/2008 @ 6:08 am

    
    

12. I’ve yet to see anyone coherently explain what Aldrete-Davila lied about that would change the culpability of Ramos and Compean.

    SPQR (26be8b) — 4/18/2008 @ 6:31 am

    
    

13. Ramos’s and Compean’s right to confront AD was limited by the type of immunity he was given. Full disclosure of his drug running career would have affected his credibility in the eyes of the jury. Especially on the question of his dangerousness, whether in fact he had a shiny object when he was shot, and whether he had buddies across the river whom he may have joined for a counterattack on the agents. The prosecution took it further by arguing what an angel trying to feed his family he was. The jury, as the sole judge of credibility and weight of the evidence, was entitled to know all the relevant facts about him. Maybe it would have affected their verdict, maybe it would have not. In my opinion there was substantial prejudice to the defense.

    nk (6b7d4f) — 4/18/2008 @ 7:06 am

    
    

14. Sutton’s office argued that the second case of drug busting was an ongoing investigation and therefore not admissable to the jury. The judge agreed to supress that information. But Sutton knew that his star witness was a dirty as a pig in a wallow. And he, through legal means, prevented the jury from hearing any evidence that would have tainted Davila’s testimony about being the good son. Other statements, by people in Mexico, who said that Davila was constantly armed when he made his “runs” was also not admitted and in fact, never called by any of the attorneys. This would have put to question the “shiney object” explaination by Ramos and Compean.

    Which brings me to this question: if it can be proved that witness statements were taken in Mexico claiming that Davila was always armed, does Ramos and Compean have a “wrongful” prosecution case?

    I don’t want Ramos and Compean pardoned. I want the verdict overturned on appeal. I want Johnny Sutton charged with withholding evidence and fired. Hell, I want his law license removed and make it so he can never practice again.

    Sutton got a guilty plea from Davila so that there would be no “discovery” phrase in the trial and no one would know how he railroaded two Border Patrol agents.

    Ramos and Compean’s lawyers should be working on having the first trial thrownout and asking for a new trial. Then, they need to go after Sutton and his whole office.

    retire05 (e76b4f) — 4/18/2008 @ 7:52 am

    
    

15. I am very sympathetic to the two agents but I have to confess my opinions were affected by my own brush with the drug warriors. They should have had an administrative penalty or been fired but the prison term was excessive and I hope the conviction is reversed.

    Mike K (86bddb) — 4/18/2008 @ 8:48 am

    
    

16. They were not drug warriors, Mike. They were protecting our borders. Yeah, it turned out to be marijuana. But it could just as well have been a one megaton nuclear bomb.

    nk (6b7d4f) — 4/18/2008 @ 9:02 am

    
    

17. I know but that checkpoint is a Border Patrol checkpoint. Maybe they were doing double duty but they weren’t doing it well and they were using questionable tactics. Of course, a 70-year-old grandfather and two 17-year-old girls driving an SUV are highly suspicious.

    Mike K (86bddb) — 4/18/2008 @ 9:12 am

    
    

18. I meant Ramos and Compean.

    nk (6b7d4f) — 4/18/2008 @ 9:55 am

    
    

19. 8

    “… And he will probably get out sooner than the two officers will. …”

    That’s because he did the sensible thing and took a plea. If Ramos and Compean had taken pleas they would be probably be out by now.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 4/18/2008 @ 11:00 am

    
    

20. I know. The problem here was that the two officers believed that they were not guilty of a crime, and that they would get a fair trial, so saw no need to take a plea and go to jail. Aldete knew he was guilty, knew how the system works and knew that he was going to get a much diminished sentence so cut his loses and copped a plea. After all, he has all that money waiting for him.

    I guess the two officers just weren’t cynical enough for their own good.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 4/18/2008 @ 11:10 am

    
    

21. 19

    “… so saw no need to take a plea and go to jail …”

    When your trial defense strategy consists of taking the stand and telling a bunch of obvious lies you really should consider taking a plea instead.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 4/18/2008 @ 12:02 pm

    
    

22. If the report is true that they falsified a police report to cover up the shooting, then they should be in prison (for how long is debatable). There is no justifiable reason to do that. Unfortunately, how can anyone believe the AUSA when he says that, so I have my doubts.

    Patrick (5903bd) — 4/18/2008 @ 12:38 pm

    
    

23. The evidence showed that Ramos and Compean failed to make the proper reports but I don’t think they falsified any reports.

    DRJ (a431ca) — 4/18/2008 @ 1:11 pm

    
    

24. I think there has been some discussion of a policy initiated by their superiors that recommended minimizing reports to avoid paperwork back at the office. I have seen this tendency in government hospitals for 40 years and suspect it is bureaucracy 101. Field officers hate paperwork and often push it down the line to REMFs. Of course, some officers don’t mind it and some, like John Kerry, find it can be very useful when your superior hates to do after action reports. It can even lead to three purple hearts and stuff like that. These guys found out that not doing it can be costly.

    Mike K (86bddb) — 4/18/2008 @ 6:18 pm

    
    

25. 24

    “… These guys found out that not doing it can be costly.”

    It is not clear they had a good alternative. I think the truth would have gotten them in trouble immediately and lying requires a plausible story which they weren’t able to come up with even much later at their trial.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 4/18/2008 @ 8:12 pm

    
    

26. And which truth would that be, James?

    nk (6b7d4f) — 4/18/2008 @ 8:24 pm

    
    

27. I have been reading the trial transcripts again. Has anyone noticed that some people use a lot of words but don’t say much? 😎

    In Volume 11 page 16 and 17 Agent Richards, the supervisor, is being questioned. He tries to tell us that he runs a tight ship and that he enforces the rules. But somehow there has only been one documented pursuit in 3 years in his sector.

    Richards – Cross by Mr. Antcliff 16
    1 BY MR. ANTCLIFF:
    2 Q. In your time at the Fabens station has anybody, to your
    3 knowledge, ever filled out a vehicle pursuit report?
    4 A. Yes, sir.
    5 Q. How many times?
    6 MS. KANOF: Objection, relevance.
    7 THE COURT: I’ll overrule.
    8 A. At least once.
    9 BY MR. ANTCLIFF:
    10 Q. How long have you been at the Fabens station?
    11 A. Three years.
    12 Q. Okay. So once in the last three years you’ve seen one of
    13 those reports?
    14 A. That’s correct.
    15 Q. Did you author it?
    16 A. Yes, sir.
    17 Q. Okay. And that was for an agent who had requested a
    18 pursuit?
    19 A. I assisted in the preparation of the report, yes. I was
    20 not on duty at the time the pursuit occurred.
    21 Q. The person that you assisted was the person conducting the
    22 pursuit?
    23 A. No, it was a supervisor.
    24 Q. Okay. Did you authorize it, or did that supervisor
    25 authorize his own pursuit?

    1 A. This was a low-speed/low-risk pursuit.
    2 Q. Like OJ?
    3 MS. KANOF: Objection.
    4 MR. ANTCLIFF: I’ll withdraw it.
    5 THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
    6 BY MR. ANTCLIFF:
    7 Q. Have you ever reprimanded any of your agents at the Fabens
    8 station for following suspected load vehicles?
    9 A. No, sir.
    10 MR. ANTCLIFF: One moment.
    11 BY MR. ANTCLIFF:
    12 Q. Sir, if you were aware of vehicle pursuits and did not fill
    13 out the proper report, would that look bad on you as a
    14 supervisor?
    15 A. Yes, sir.
    16 MR. ANTCLIFF: I’ll pass the witness.
    

    Also a little further on at page 78 when Robert Arnold, the supervisor below Richards was testifying, there was this:

    25 Q. Did he tell you what the incident was going to be about?

    1 A. Just that two agents were going to be arrested. That’s all
    2 he said.
    3 Q. And he didn’t tell you who the agents were?
    4 A. No, ma’am.
    5 Q. Or why they were going to be arrested?
    6 A. No, ma’am.
    7 Q. Did you warm up your computer?
    8 A. Yes, ma’am, I did.
    9 Q. Okay. And — well, when were you next instructed, with
    10 regard to the significant incident report?
    11 A. I guess about an hour later. He called back, and at that
    12 time he instructed me to pull in — I think I had three people
    13 on duty that day: Mr. Vasquez, Mr. Juarez — and I think
    14 Mr. Jacquez was coming in on the evening shift. And he
    15 instructed me to pull their weapons and badges and credentials.
    16 Q. Okay. That would be Jacquez, Juarez, and who?
    17 A. And —
    18 Q. Vasquez?
    19 A. — Vasquez, yes, ma’am.
    20 Q. And you said pull their weapons and —
    21 A. Pull their weapons and their badges and credentials, and
    22 advise them to — you’re on administrative leave until further
    23 notice, to report to OIA the next working day.
    24 Q. Did you do that?
    25 A. Yes, ma’am.

    1 Q. Did you know why you were doing it?
    2 A. Not at that time.
    3 Q. Okay. So he still hadn’t told you why you were doing it?
    4 A. No, ma’am.
    5 Q. Okay. What happened next?
    6 A. No. Then right after — about 2:00, right at shift change,
    7 is when — when he called back and he told me, This is what’s
    8 going on. He said, Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean are going to be
    9 arrested for — well, he said attempted murder, is what he
    10 said.
    11 Q. Okay.
    12 A. And that was the first that I heard.
    13 Q. Did you ask him, For what? For when?
    14 A. No. It’s — he’s patrol agent in charge. He gives me an
    15 order, tells me to something, that’s what I did.
    16 Q. He asks the questions, not you. Is that right?
    17 A. Yes, ma’am, he asks the questions.
    18 Q. Okay. So had you filled out that significant incident
    19 report yet?
    20 A. No, ma’am. He told me to hold off on that, that the OIA
    21 people were going to do the significant incident report.
    22 Q. Oh. At that point he changed his mind?
    23 A. Yes, ma’am.
    24 Q. Okay. And he said OIA — who is OIA?
    25 A. Office of Internal Audit.

    1 Q. Okay. And did you follow his instructions with regard to
    2 those three agents?
    3 A. Yes, ma’am.
    4 Q. Juarez, Jacquez, and Vasquez?
    5 A. Yes, ma’am.
    6 Q. What did you do?
    7 A. I believe Mr. Jacquez had all of his stuff there, all of
    8 his equipment. He turned it in. I had to follow Mr. Vasquez
    9 and Mr. Juarez home to pick up the rest of the things that they
    10 had at home. And they turned over their equipment, badges,
    11 everything, and then I went back to the office.
    12 Q. Well, let me ask you this: When you were following Juarez
    13 and Vasquez — I guess to one home and then the other. Is that
    14 correct?
    15 A. Yes, ma’am.
    16 Q. And picking up, did they say anything to you about what
    17 happened on that date?
    18 A. No, ma’am.
    19 Q. They didn’t tell you there had been a shooting?
    20 A. No, ma’am.
    21 Q. Did you ask them?
    22 A. No, ma’am.

    Either this is the must incurious man in the world or he has learned not to question the boss. Can any of you imagine a situation where your boss tells you that 2 of the 20 people you work with are getting arrested and you don’t even ask about it?

    For that matter both Richards and Arnold testified that Richards only asked a couple of questions at the scene and did not press for details about the pursuit (that wasn’t a pursuit)or the incident at the levy. Arnold didn’t ask any questions because his boss was there and you don’t upstage the boss. (Paraphrasing here but very close to what he said.)

    From page 106

    3 Q. And did you ask questions when you arrived? Did you
    4 interview or ask any questions of the agents that were there
    5 about, Tell me about this pursuit. Tell me how it happened.
    6 A. No, ma’am. My immediate supervisor was there.
    7 Q. Okay. And if he wanted to know anything, he could have
    8 asked, right?
    9 A. He’s — basically, he’s — you — if you have a senior
    10 person above you, you let that person take care of it. You
    11 don’t jump your chain of command.
    12 Q. Right. You’re going to defer to him, right?
    13 A. Yes.
    14 Q. Okay. And he didn’t ask any questions of any of those
    15 agents about the pursuit, right?
    16 A. He just asked what had happened, when he asked Mr. Compean
    17 what had happened to him.
    18 Q. Okay. No, but I’m — but I’m specifically asking about the
    19 pursuit, the — the vehicle pursuit, or chase, or following.
    20 A. No. No.
    21 Q. He didn’t ask any questions about that, right?
    22 A. No, ma’am.
    23 Q. Okay. And you have to defer to, I guess, his
    24 interpretation of the vehicle pursuit policy, correct?
    25 A. Yes, ma’am.

    1 Q. And his interpretation about what a pursuit is and what it
    2 isn’t, right?
    3 A. Yes, ma’am.
    4 Q. You certainly don’t try to hide anything from him, do you?
    5 A. No, ma’am.
    6 Q. Okay. Would you say it’s fair to say that his attitude
    7 about vehicle pursuits is, Don’t ask, don’t tell?
    8 A. Well, he’s a stickler for paperwork. Mr. Richards is a
    9 stickler for paperwork.
    10 Q. Okay. Okay. Well, the vehicle pursuit policy wasn’t being
    11 followed to the letter, correct?
    12 A. No, ma’am.
    13 Q. Okay. Not on this day and not on any other time that
    14 you’ve been at the Fabens area, right?
    15 A. I think that was the very first one that I had been
    16 involved in —
    17 Q. Okay.
    18 A. — since — at Fabens.
    19 Q. Okay. Doesn’t that fall on your supervisor, to make the
    20 decision whether the policy should be enforced or not?
    21 A. You’re speaking about Mr. Richards?
    22 Q. Yes.
    23 A. Yes. I mean, he’s the senior supervisor there.
    

    I have worked for people like this. Don’t tell me what you are doing or how so that I can deny any knowledge if something goes wrong in the future. Meantime, make sure that good things get reported so I can take credit for them. Oh, the good old days in the Navy with career bureaucrats for my supervisors.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 4/18/2008 @ 9:53 pm

    
    

28. What the heck does this mean?

    04/17/2008 58 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kathleen Cardone:Arraignment as to Osvaldo Alderete-Davila (2) Count 3,4,5,6. Plea of not guilty entered on 4/17/2008 (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.), Guilty Plea Accepted by Court as to Osvaldo Alderete-Davila (2) Count 3,4,5,6. (Court Reporter David Perez.) (me, ) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

    Does this mean he made a plea of not guilty and then Sutton bargained with Davila to change it?

    j curtis (c84b9e) — 4/18/2008 @ 11:33 pm

    
    

29. 26

    “And which truth would that be, James?”

    I wasn’t there so I don’t know for sure. One possibility, Compean was angered and embarrassed that OAD had gotten past him causing him to fall on his face in the process. So out of frustration he fires off a bunch of shots not trying to hit OAD but to scare him. Ramos, who had to go down into a ditch and climb up the other side to get to the scene, arrives, sees Compean blazing away, thinks he must have a good reason and fires the shot that knocks down OAD. Compean abruptly coming to his senses asks Ramos what the heck he is doing. While they are discussing the situation OAD gets to his feet and staggers away. Compean and Ramos decide with OAD gone there is no need to report this fiasco. And in fact they were a bit unlucky that anything came of this. I have the impression that border patrol guys have been getting away with all sorts of stuff for a long time.

    There are other possibilities as well. However the story they told at trial just didn’t make any sense and I am not surprised they were convicted.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 4/19/2008 @ 2:34 pm

    
    

30. j curtis @ 28: That’s just a pro forma entry in the minutes of the clerk of the court. A defendant typically enters a not guilty plea to the counts of the indictment in which he has been charged. A formal written plea agreement is then signed which sets for the the terms of the agreement to plead guilty to one or more of the charges in the indictment. The judge then goes over all the terms of the plea agreement in open court with the defendant to make sure he understands what it is he is agreeing to since it involves a waiver of constitutional rights. Once the judge is satisfied the defendant understands the terms and consequences of the agreement, the judge then allows the defendant to change his plea from not guilty to guilty.

    Sometimes this is done without the benefit of a formal written agreement, and the defendant simply pleads guilty to the indictment in the first instance. But that usually only happens in simple cases where there are no bargained-for provisions.

    wls (25ea66) — 4/22/2008 @ 2:18 am

    
    

31. Sutton and Kanof appear to be in violation of Texas State Bar rules regarding perjured testimony. Has a complaint against them been filed with the Texas State Bar?

    P Pearson (e913bc) — 4/30/2008 @ 2:02 pm