Thread: Jailed border agents plead for new trial

Jailed border agents plead for new trial
Running out of options, Ramos, Compean appealing conviction today in federal court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 3, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

With their legal options running out, two agents for the U.S. Border Patrol serving jail sentences in connection with the shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler are appealing their convictions today in federal court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans is hearing the appeal of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, and the three-judge panel will typically issue a decision within four to six weeks of hearing the arguments.

A judgment in favor of Ramos and Compean could reverse their convictions and demand a new trial.

A reversal would be based on legal errors made by the prosecution and/or the judge at the trial court, not on a rehearing of the facts of the case.

If Ramos and Compean should lose the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals, the last remaining level of judicial appeal is the U.S. Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case.

Ramos and Compean are currently in solitary confinement in federal prison, serving 11- and 12-year sentences respectively, for shooting fleeing drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila who was escaping into Mexico after having brought 750 pounds of marijuana across the border into Fabens, Texas.

Last Thursday, Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Robert Holguin testified at Aldrete-Davila's bond hearing that the DEA has information Aldrete-Davila is a professional drug smuggler who transports for a drug smuggling ring in Mexico.

Moreover, Holguin confirmed an earlier WND report that Aldrete-Davila had been involved not only in a "second load" on Oct. 22, 2005, but also an unsuccessful drug run on Sept. 24, 2005.

Both the September and October 2005 incidents occurred before the start of the Ramos-Compean trial, while Aldrete-Davila was under a grant of immunity from prosecutor U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in El Paso and in possession of a "multiple entry" border pass card signed by Department of Homeland Security Special Agent Christopher Sanchez.

This directly contradicts Aldrete-Davila's testimony at trial that he was an innocent victim who knew nothing about drug smuggling or marijuana, but was forced to drive the van on Feb. 17, 2005, because he lost his commercial drivers license in Mexico and he needed to buy medicine for his sick mother.

A key issue in the Ramos-Compean appeal is whether their rights to a fair trial were severely compromised when Judge Kathleen Cardone ruled in favor of a prosecution motion to seal all information about the second load and prohibited the defense from cross-examining Aldrete-Davila about his professional drug smuggling history as evidenced by the second load.

A WND analysis of the Ramos-Compean appellant briefs leaves no doubt defense attorneys at the appeal felt Judge Cardone's decision was a critically harmful error, preventing the defense from demonstrating to the jury that Aldrete-Davila, the prosecution's star witness, may well have lied about having a gun on Feb. 17, 2005, since he also lied about the nature and extent of his drug running activities.

The appellant briefs also make clear that Aldrete-Davila was smuggling a "huge load" of 750 pounds of marijuana with a street value of approximately $500,000, not the type of load a "poor mule" would be hired to drive across the border for the mere $1,000 to $1,500 Aldrete-Davila represented he was going to be paid.

Moreover, the appellant briefs argue Aldrete-Davila's subsequent lawsuit against the Border Patrol for $5 million was conditioned upon the conviction of Ramos and Compean, a goal which the appellant lawyers believed provided Aldrete-Davila 5 million reasons to lie.

At issue for the appellate judges to decide is whether or not technical errors were made at the trial – for instance, if Judge Cardone's ruling that the immunity extended to Aldrete-Davila still allowed him Fifth Amendment privileges to refuse to testify about the second load.

At stake in the court of public opinion is whether or not the jury would have convicted Ramos and Compean if the full evidence of Aldrete-Davila's second load and extensive professional drug history had been presented.

WND has run a three-part series analyzing the Ramos-Compean appellant briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

In the first part, WND argued Ramos and Compean were convicted after an overzealous prosecution charged them under the wrong statute, while trying to "bootstrap" a series of administrative errors into criminal offenses.

In the second part, WND examined case law arguing Ramos and Compean's use of deadly force in the Feb. 17, 2005, incident with Aldrete-Davila was reasonable and justified in the circumstances of the event.

In the third part, WND examined defense arguments Ramos and Compean were denied their right to a fair trial when Judge Cardone's rulings allowed Aldrete-Davila to assume Fifth Amendment privileges, thereby preventing Ramos and Compean from cross-examining him on the second load.

WND has also reported Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Friends of the Border Patrol, has called for a special prosecutor to investigate Sutton and trial prosecutor Debra Kanof for subornation of perjury for allowing Aldrete-Davila to take the stand under "false pretenses."

On Nov. 19, WND reported a group of 31 prominent conservative leaders, including one of President Bush's long-time friends, have signed a letter urging Bush to pardon Ramos and Compean.

Last week, WND filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security seeking government information about the lawsuit filed against the United States by Aldrete-Davila.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=58991

Comments are being left after this article.
~~
Dec. 3, 2007, 12:35AM
Ex-border agents' case back in court
Appeals panel to consider hotly debated shooting of suspected drug smuggler


By SUSAN CARROLL
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

A panel of federal appeals court judges will hear arguments today in the controversial case of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents sentenced to more than a decade in prison for shooting a suspected drug smuggler and then trying to cover it up.

The hearing in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is the latest chapter in a case that has become a flash point in the nation's debate on illegal immigration. On CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight and on Houston's AM radio waves, former agents Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos and Jose Compean have been hailed as "heroes" and "political prisoners."

"They've been incarcerated in isolation now for almost a year. It's just not right," said Joe Loya, Ramos' father-in-law, who plans to travel to New Orleans with his daughter, Monica Ramos, to hear the appeal of the agents' convictions. "These two men were doing their jobs."

But U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office paints a very different picture of Ramos and Compean, who were sentenced in October 2006 to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively. The two were found guilty by a federal jury after a 2 1/2 -week trial on charges of assault, violation of civil rights, use of a firearm during a crime of violence and obstruction of justice.

The charges stemmed from the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, a suspected drug smuggler who tried to elude Border Patrol agents in South Texas. Aldrete was driving a van near Fabens, southeast of El Paso, that was found to hold 743 pounds of marijuana. He tried to flee on foot back to Mexico across the Rio Grande and was shot in the buttocks with a bullet from Ramos' gun.

According to trial testimony, the agents didn't report the shooting to supervisors, and Compean picked up his shell casings from the area near the river.


Self-defense argument
Attorneys for the former agents are pushing for a new trial, arguing the agents acted in self-defense, according to briefs filed with the appeals court. They also contend that Ramos and Compean were improperly charged with discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, which carries a mandatory sentence of 10 years. Bob Baskett, Compean's attorney, said that statute should not be applied to law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.

According to the defense arguments, the federal judge in El Paso erred by allowing Aldrete to invoke the Fifth Amendment on the witness stand, Baskett said, and by not allowing them to question him more extensively about evidence of additional smuggling attempts.

"It basically came down to (Aldrete's) word against theirs, and if he's shown to be a lying dope dealer, that might have influenced the way the jury saw the evidence," Baskett said.

Loya, Ramos' father-in-law, said the agents were "Nifonged," a reference to Mike Nifong, the former Durham County (N.C.) District Attorney who resigned because of misconduct in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Loya said Sutton's office should not have offered Aldrete immunity in exchange for his testimony.

"How could the U.S. Attorney ... take the word of an admitted illegal alien criminal drug smuggler over two agents with 15 years of experience who have been involved in over 100 drug busts and never hurt anybody?" he said. "It doesn't make sense."

Shana Jones, a spokeswoman for Sutton, said prosecutors were refraining from comment on the case because of the upcoming appeal. David Botsford, Ramos' attorney, declined to comment on specifics of the appeal, instead referring to court documents.

In testimony before Congress earlier this year, Sutton defended his decision to prosecute: "An honest reading of the facts of this case shows that Compean and Ramos deliberately shot at an unarmed man in the back without justification, destroyed evidence to cover it up and lied about it. A jury heard the facts and voted to convict."


Key witness indicted
Supporters of the former agents said they were encouraged by fresh developments in the case, including the recent arrest of Aldrete. He was indicted in October and arrested Nov. 15 on marijuana smuggling charges.

The charges stem from smuggling attempts in 2005 — before Aldrete testified as a key witness at the agents' trial.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, said Aldrete's indictment should help Ramos and Compean's appeal. It shows "the U.S. attorney knew all along that Aldrete was a drug dealer and not some poor mule trying to get money for his sick mother in Mexico, which is what they presented to the jury in the trial," he said. "He was a bigger player than that and the jury should have known about that. And the reason they should have known about that was because the entire case was based upon Aldrete's testimony."

In a statement released after Aldrete's arrest, Sutton said new evidence led to Aldrete's indictment and that his office had been working closely with the Drug Enforcement Administration to secure charges.

"Just as Aldrete's alleged illegal conduct did not excuse the crimes committed by Compean and Ramos, likewise, their crimes will not excuse his," Sutton said in the statement. "Compean and Ramos had their day in court and received justice in accordance with well-established laws."


Political implications
The Ramos and Compean case has struck a nerve politically and has been championed by mainly Republican members of Congress and presidential candidates. The White House has been under pressure to issue pardons for the two former agents, amid reports that grassroots groups had gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures of support.

In July, the House approved an unusual amendment by Poe designed to free the duo by barring the Bureau of Prisons from using federal funds to incarcerate them. The move was unprecedented in the House but ultimately symbolic because it would require approval of the Senate and President Bush.

"Opposition to immigration is probably higher in this country now than it has been at any time since the 1920s," said Rogers Smith, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania who studies immigration and related issues. "So that's a political climate in which appearing to work against tough border enforcement will be unpopular, and political leaders will therefore have an incentive to criticize it."

Loya said the case is not about illegal immigration. "It's about a travesty of justice," he said. "I pray that now we would at least get a retrial.

"I will fight this forever," Loya said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5346639.html