Thread: US ATTORNEY JOHNNY SUTTON RESIGNS

Good riddance to this piece of crap. If we had a real government, he'd have been disbarred and prosecuted for his treason.

Yippie! But its not over yet Johnny. Be afraid. Eventually you are going to be tied to Bush, Gonzales and others who ruined the lives of two border agents by ruling in favor of a drug running Mexican.

About time!! wonder what took so long?

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

About time!! wonder what took so long?

Oh, he probably just agreed to stay on until his replacement arrived........traveling from Hell probably makes for a long trip

This is the best damned news I have heard all week besides the defeat of in-state tuition in Mexorado and other states for border hopping illegal alien leeches. The first time today that I have a smile on my face. I suspect Holder would have tried to prosecute Johnny Satan as political payback against the Bush adminstration since this one is so hell bent on pursuing Bush for political reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if Johnny Satan now works in a full time capacity for his drug cartel masters....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6367753.html

102 comments so far

Texans, before you go to bed tonight, pray long and hard he won't be replaced by another illegal lover.

Originally Posted by HeartlandPatriot

Originally Posted by Bowman

Retiring in Mexico I bet.

That was my first thought too. I can see him trying to get out of the country before he is put on trial for malicious prosecution.

I think the only reason Bush commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean is to try and keep his buddy Sutton from being prosecuted.

I doubt and wouldn't agree with malicious prosecution since every high court affirmed the ruling.

i tend to disagree with you seeing as how Sutton and his team went out of their way to keep information from the jury that would go to the credibility of the governments star witness.
There is a DEA report that Edd Hendee got a hold of that was sealed by the courts that actually fingered Davila in drug smuggling operations that just coincidentally, he is now in federal prison serving time for.

There is the threat of prosecution of the three other BP agents if they would not tell the jury what the US atty office wanted them too and all three admitted on the stand they lied in the first statements and changed them after being pressured and threatened with prosecution.

The high court refused to hear the appeal to vacate charges that the attorney's were fighting to get over turned.
Lets remember, the 5th court of appeals did take one charge off the verdict, i think it was the obstruction charge

Originally Posted by jamesw62

i tend to disagree with you seeing as how Sutton and his team went out of their way to keep information from the jury that would go to the credibility of the governments star witness.
There is a DEA report that Edd Hendee got a hold of that was sealed by the courts that actually fingered Davila in drug smuggling operations that just coincidentally, he is now in federal prison serving time for.

There is the threat of prosecution of the three other BP agents if they would not tell the jury what the US atty office wanted them too and all three admitted on the stand they lied in the first statements and changed them after being pressured and threatened with prosecution.

The high court refused to hear the appeal to vacate charges that the attorney's were fighting to get over turned.
Lets remember, the 5th court of appeals did take one charge off the verdict, i think it was the obstruction charge

Federal rules of evidence prevent the prosecution from withholding exculpatory evidence (i.e evidence. that would tend to prove the defendants did not commit the crime). This was not the case here. Further, certain evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is outweighed by prejudice. Every court which has heard or reviewed this has not ruled that there was evidence that the jury should have heard. This is basic law student knowledge. For example, in certain jurisdictions, jurors are not to be informed of potential sentencing as a juror who was made aware may be inclined to vote not guilty not because they believe the defendant is not guilty but because they do not agree with the particular sentencing guidelines or feel compassion for a defendant's family members.
Perhaps one or two judges might make a mistake, but it is unreasonable to believe that that many judges would put their reputations, integrity, and careers on the line to rule in favor of the D.A. This would further lead to sanctions if not criminal charges against Sutton, a la Nifong. Sutton has never been charged with any misconduct.