Agents Lose Last Appeal in Shot Smuggler Case

[Hockey9019]

NEW ORLEANS, LA – The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans denied a request Thursday for a rehearing in an appeal by two U.S. Border Patrol agents who received lengthy prison terms for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks as he fled Texas into Mexico.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case, said the court’s ruling means that it will not hear any more arguments on the appeal, which was filed after agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were found guilty of shooting Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in February 2005. The shooting occurred after Aldrete-Davila ran from a van loaded with 743 pounds of marijuana near Fabens, Texas.

“I am pleased with today’s ruling, just as I was earlier this summer when a panel of the same court affirmed the convictions of the most serious charges against Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos,” Mr. Sutton said.

“Today’s ruling validates what this office has been saying all along – this prosecution was about the rule of law, plain and simple,” he said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who sought a presidential or congressional pardon for the agents, said the nation’s justice system “has once again failed agents Ramos and Compean.”

“These men, as well as their families, have suffered enough,” he told The Washington Times. “The only way this injustice can possibly be corrected is through a pardon or a commutation.”

The latest ruling means that the two agents will serve their prison sentences unless Mr. Bush pardons them or commutes their sentences. Ramos, 37, received an 11-year prison sentence, and Compean, 28, a 12-year sentence in October 2006.

The White House has said that President Bush would review pardon petitions on a case-by-case basis.

In July, the appeals court ruled that the agents had been “properly convicted of substantive crimes,” saying the evidence presented at their trial “fully supports the jury verdict.” While the ruling vacated five minor counts in a 12-count indictment against the agents, it let stand seven other charges – including assault and the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, which resulted in 10-year mandatory sentences.

The appeals court in July also noted that U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, did not violate the agents’ right to due process when she excluded evidence from the jury about the size of the marijuana load and Aldrete-Davila’s suspected involvement in a second drug-smuggling venture in October 2005.

Aldrete-Davila, 27, was arrested in November by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in El Paso on a federal grand-jury indictment charging him with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. The indictment said he brought a second load of 752 pounds of marijuana into the U.S. in October 2005, eight months after he had been shot by the agents.

In August, Aldrete-Davila was sentenced to 9 1/2 years in federal prison in the second case. The sentence was handed down by Judge Cardone.


The two Border Patrol agents were on patrol along the U.S.-Mexico border when, according to the appeals court panel, they chased “an alien drug smuggler driving a van as he speeded toward the Mexican border.” The court panel said that after the “drug smuggler” abandoned the van and began to run to the border, the agents gave chase and fired their weapons at him several times.

But after the chase, there was a “cover-up” that included a cleanup of the shooting site of spent shells and a failure by the agents to report they had fired their weapons – as “plainly required by well-established Border Patrol policies,” the court panel said.

Mr. Sutton said Thursday that those who criticized the prosecution in the case should “re-evaluate their position in light of the court record.”

“I believe that those who understand the record and the evidence introduced at trial will realize that the actions of Compean and Ramos in shooting an unarmed and fleeing suspect were serious crimes which had to be prosecuted in order to maintain the rule of law,” he said.


http://www.policelink.com/news/51784...er-case?page=2

[Norm357]

The two Border Patrol agents were on patrol along the U.S.-Mexico border when, according to the appeals court panel, they chased “an alien drug smuggler driving a van as he speeded toward the Mexican border.” The court panel said that after the “drug smuggler” abandoned the van and began to run to the border, the agents gave chase and fired their weapons at him several times.

But after the chase, there was a “cover-up” that included a cleanup of the shooting site of spent shells and a failure by the agents to report they had fired their weapons – as “plainly required by well-established Border Patrol policies,” the court panel said.

If the above is true, then they should be in jail. For a very long time.

[retdetsgt]

If the above is true, then they should be in jail. For a very long time.

Yeah, if the courts continue to affirm the conviction, there must be some meat to it. We should give cops benefit of the doubt, but not disregard evidence either just because they're cops.

[explcdt8]

Were the agents charged for the shooting itself, or for the cover-up. Since those are elements of distinct crimes. The same as someone who dumps the body of someone who died of natural causes. They would be charged with destruction of evidence or obstruction, not with murder, right?

[retdetsgt]

Were the agents charged for the shooting itself, or for the cover-up. Since those are elements of distinct crimes. The same as someone who dumps the body of someone who died of natural causes. They would be charged with destruction of evidence or obstruction, not with murder, right?

I don't know a lot about this case, but I know quite a bit about homicide and police shooting investigations.

I always precluded any interview with an officer who shot someone by telling them they know if the shooting was righteous or not. If it was, tell me absolutely everything. If it wasn't, tell me to stuff it and ask for an attorney. If it's good, I'm their best friend, if it's a dirty shooting, I'm their worst enemy.

Why would these guys possibly try to cover up a legitimate shooting? It doesn't work that way. If it was justified, they would have left everything as it was and there would be no need to try to change the scene. If they panicked, it was because they knew they stepped on their genitals.

The sad thing is, it's not that hard for an investigator with any experience at all to figure out that things have been tampered with.

[charlydevo]

One thing has been left out by the media. The agents had a supervisor on scene immediately after the shooting. The lazy supervisor told them not to bother with the paperwork (Nobody knew that the smuggler was hit. They all thought that he made it back to Mexico unharmed). Therefore, not submitting paper about the shooting was the fault of the supervisor, and not necessarily indicative of a cover up.

The agents in this case didn't know that Aldrete was hit until they were arrested. They, and the supervisor on scene, should have been fired for picking up the casings instead of reporting the discharges of the weapons. But, I don't think that they should be in prison. Their defense was that they thought that Aldrete had a gun in his hand and stopped running, turned to face them, and pointed his gun. They shot. He continued to flee until he was in Mexico. They didn't think that he was hit.

There's something else that should be pointed out. The locals investigated the shooting. They called it a good shoot. The FBI investigated the shooting. They called it a good shoot. Nevertheless, the local U.S. attorney (a career cop prosecutor) called for an investigation by the OIG. Suddenly, it became a bad shoot. Lots of hinky facts were found by people who have looked into the case, particularly in the way of the U.S. Attorney failing to admit exculpatory evidence.

Who was the prosecution's star witness? It was Aldrete, of course. In exchange for not prosecuting the smuggling charges, Aldrete testified that he never had a weapon. He also got a green card out of the deal. He was later caught smuggling another load into the U.S. Remember that Aldrete went back to Mexico and waited several days (presumably until after a lawyer told him that he could get a green card out of it) before he contacted U.S. officials to report being shot.

On another note, the agents were definitely very stupid. Whether or not the shoot was good or bad wouldn't have mattered. Aldrete made it back to Mexico, and nobody will ever know if he had a gun or not. If the agents just did the paperwork on the shooting, nothing would have ever happened to them.

Because the ****bag made it to Mexico, we'll never know whether or not he had a gun in his hand or whether or not he stopped running, and turned towards the agents. The fact that he was running a 600 pound load of dope means that he might well have had a gun. The fact that he ran a second load of dope after getting a deal with the government means that he is a career ****bag.

I can't see why they would take shots at him while he was running away if he didn't have a gun. Watching dopers get back to Mexico before you can catch them is a daily occurrence in the Border Patrol. It's really no big deal. Why would they shoot? Who knows? The agents and Aldrete know the truth. The rest of us have to speculate.

[retdetsgt]

One thing has been left out by the media. The agents had a supervisor on scene immediately after the shooting. The lazy supervisor told them not to bother with the paperwork (Nobody knew that the smuggler was hit. They all thought that he made it back to Mexico unharmed). Therefore, not submitting paper about the shooting was the fault of the supervisor, and not necessarily indicative of a cover up.

Huge part left out, I agree.... I suppose the supervisor was promoted shortly there after?????

I'm still a little surprised that a jury convicted them if the locals and the FBI SA's came in and testified for the defense though. Well, maybe the FBI might not be allowed to because of their relation with the USA, but the locals certainly could.

[charlydevo]

Well, it's a tough situation. In South Texas, it can be very difficult for Border Patrol Agents to get a fair trial. Think about how many jurors whose families might have come here illegally. Or, how many jurors have family in Mexico that can't get in? Border Patrol Agents are loved by the local ranchers, but hated by most of the local population. If they were to get a fair trial, the case should have been moved to DC.

I'm not saying that I'm absolutely right. These guys might be guilty. It's just that I've followed the case closely, and I can't see how anybody else in their shoes would have been found guilty. They got the short end of the stick. It came down to their word that the smuggler had a gun versus the word of the smuggler that he had no gun.

The smuggler was caught running another dope load after being given a deal to testify against the agents, but before the trial began. For some reason, that information wasn't given to the jurors. It seems to me that this information would have instantly erased any credibility of the witness (smuggler). It also could have been considered exculpatory, as it would lend credibility to the defendants' testimony.

Johnny Sutton has fried a few Border Patrol Agents and a local Deputy Sheriff. They all had interactions with illegal aliens that led to the use of force. All of them were convicted of violating civil rights and sent to prison. Either South Texas has major problems with abusive and racist cops, or Johnny Sutton has an agenda. I think it's the latter.

Check out this page if you get a chance. You can do some more searching. I'll post some more links later if I get the time. You can find the minutes of the trial and some other good stuff through Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Sutton

[retdetsgt]

Well, it's a tough situation. In South Texas, it can be very difficult for Border Patrol Agents to get a fair trial. Think about how many jurors whose families might have come here illegally. Or, how many jurors have family in Mexico that can't get in? Border Patrol Agents are loved by the local ranchers, but hated by most of the local population. If they were to get a fair trial, the case should have been moved to DC.

Excellent point. I've lived in the NW too long. I forgot about that.

[Group9]

As regarding trying to cover up the shooting. How many people here have read David Simon's book "Homicide - A Year on the Killing Streets"?

One of the homicides profiled in the book is a police killing where the police officers involved all ran away instead of reporting that they had been in a shooting. As the homicide investigators (one of whom was an acquintence of mine and one of the detectives mentioned frequenty in the book, and another I worked on some cases with) looked into the case, they were shocked to find that the case was a very clear cut use of justifiable force, with numerous citizen witnesses, as well as the forensics, backing that up.

The detectives then came to the inevitable conclusion, (really the only one someone could make from such a situation). That being, that the involved officers knew it was a justified use of force, but didn't trust internal affairs and the brass, to see it that way, to the point they would rather run from the scene than subject themselves to such an inquiry.

That incident, was the first thing that came to my mind, when I heard about this case, and every single Border Patrol Agent I know has pretty much admitted that as a possiblity. Which, of course, would explain the whole incident, while not excusing it, as well as being the one the BP brass would not be the least likely to admit or entertain.

[Group9]

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlydevo
Well, it's a tough situation. In South Texas, it can be very difficult for Border Patrol Agents to get a fair trial. Think about how many jurors whose families might have come here illegally. Or, how many jurors have family in Mexico that can't get in? Border Patrol Agents are loved by the local ranchers, but hated by most of the local population. If they were to get a fair trial, the case should have been moved to DC.

Excellent point. I've lived in the NW too long. I forgot about that.

I worked in Texas, including south Texas, in the late 80's, and I, too, as shocked at how big an influence illegal aliens had in the political system there. I would not have wanted to go to trial in Dallas, much less closer to the border, for shooting an illegal alien, with a jury with illegal aliens (yes, it happens) or their families, sitting on it.

You notice how little attention the whole illegal alien thing is getting in this year's presidential election? Neither candidate wants to get hammered in the border states for saying we need to deport the illegals here, or get hammered everywhere else, for saying we should let them stay. They are already affecting our political system, and I'll bet this case will bet studied two hundred years from now, when they teach how the USA went from being primarily anglo to primarily latino.

[Group9]

Negligent double posting.

[Citicop]

If the above is true, then they should be in jail. For a very long time.

That's IF that's true. The National Border Patrol Council has a different take on it. I can't copy the text from the PDF, but check it out:

NBPC Response to US Attorney

Citicop.

[retdetsgt]

[B]
I worked in Texas, including south Texas, in the late 80's, and I, too, as shocked at how big an influence illegal aliens had in the political system there. I would not have wanted to go to trial in Dallas, much less closer to the border, for shooting an illegal alien, with a jury with illegal aliens (yes, it happens) or their families, sitting on it.

The Texas border area was crooked when I was a kid growing up in Texas. The local LE was the best money could buy, it was just common knowledge throughout the state. I don't know about the local LE now, but I doubt the public has changed much. As I said, I've lived in the NW too long, I forgot about that part of the state.

[Norm357]

That's IF that's true. The National Border Patrol Council has a different take on it. I can't copy the text from the PDF, but check it out:

NBPC Response to US Attorney

Citicop.

I said IF it's true. ;)