Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.


CNET Support

General discussion

Compean and Ramos will likely be freed

Dec 4, 2007 12:35AM PST,,-7123760,00.html

Appeal Heard in Border Agents' Shooting

Monday December 3, 2007 9:01 PM


Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Federal prosecutors appear to have ``overreacted'' in their pursuit of a case against two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a fleeing drug suspect and hiding evidence, one of three judges considering an appeal said Monday.

Jose Alonso Compean is serving 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos 11 years for assault, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations in the wounding of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila on the border near El Paso, Texas, in 2005. The agents want the convictions thrown out; they claim the shooting was a case of self-defense but acknowledge not reporting the incident.

If the agents had reported the shooting as required, ``this prosecution never would have occurred, in all likelihood,'' said Judge E. Grady Jolly, part of the three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the case.

Noting the severity of the charges and the lengthy sentences prosecutors sought, Jolly said, ``It does seem to me like the government overreacted here.''

Pretty much what everyone but Sutton has been saying all along. His (and the judge's) refusal to allow the jury to hear ALL the evidence and painting Davila as an "innocent" man who was wronged as well as failing to ensure the jury understood the legalities of deadly force when applied by law officers are pretty much the only reasons for the conviction and several of the initial jurors have already stated that if they had heard all the evidence they would not have convicted.

Now Sutton should be handled in the same manner as Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong who was disbarred for his ethics violations in the Duke Lacrosse investigation.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
That's what the appeals process is for.
Dec 4, 2007 1:07AM PST

It seems as if the judge that ruled against the felonious act of the "victim" to be excluded from the ears of the jury was invoking what we all agree should not be relevant.... such as introducing the sexual history of a rape victim at the trial of her rapist. Such "evidence" can be prejudicial.

But, IMO, the exclusion of the very relevant act did not fit the same mold.

I wish the men had reported the incident.

As far as Sutton being forced to resign, I can't agree out of hand. In the Duke case, the DA had evidence the charges were false, but chose to proceed. In this case, the men had chosen to not report the shooting, which was against policy. However, IMO, that would have merited a slap on the wrist or a reprimand at most.

Speakeasy Moderator

- Collapse -
The inability to introduce ...
Dec 4, 2007 2:23AM PST

the sexual history of a "rape victim" can be and often is also prejudicial to the accused.

There are too many instances of "rape victims" who were willing and active participants right up until the wrong person opened a door and she was caught en flagrant d

- Collapse -
I don't believe this happens that often
Dec 4, 2007 12:42PM PST

Like the thought that some men believed that no meant yes and a case of rape was a whore that didn't get paid.


- Collapse -
Actually it happens fairly often ...
Dec 5, 2007 3:52AM PST

much as does accusations of sexual discrimination or racial discrimination.

There have even been quite a few high profile incidents such as the one Sharpton was involved in as well as the Duke case.

- Collapse -
Diana and I are quite aware of those exceptions.
Dec 5, 2007 4:22AM PST

And we don't defend their actions, nor condone the grief they put the men through.

We are talking about rape here. It is an act of violence.

It's no wonder why so many victims are hesitant to bring formal charges and go to court.Sad

Speakeasy Moderator

- Collapse -
(NT) these men should never have been charged
Dec 4, 2007 7:55AM PST
- Collapse -
RE: will likely be freed
Dec 4, 2007 4:08AM PST

Read the article..........Didn't see those words.

- Collapse -
Sutton's response
Dec 4, 2007 7:04AM PST
- Collapse -
3 judges
Dec 5, 2007 4:11AM PST

1 says something....... and they're (likely) free?

the lawyers said they're hopeful....and you're "jumping for joy"?

Don't get your clients hopes too high.