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.
Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
General discussion
Compean and Ramos will likely be freed
Appeal Heard in Border Agents' Shooting
Monday December 3, 2007 9:01 PM
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
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
Reporting:
Compean and Ramos will likely be freed
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
9 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney?s Office
Western District of Texas
Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney
another example where the cover-up becomes the flash-point?
if their appeals fail.
president bush could pardon them if he believes they were wronged.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic