http://lonestartimes.com/2008/07/29/edd-hendee-responds-to-5th-circuits-ramo
s-compean-decision/
<http://lonestartimes.com/2008/07/29/edd-hendee-responds-to-5th-circuits-ram
os-compean-decision/>
Edd Hendee responds to 5th Circuit's Ramos & Compean decision
by LST Staff . 07/29/2008 11:08 am
[NOTE: The following op-ed is published below as a courtesy to "friend of
LST" Edd Hendee and because we believe it will be of significant interest to
our readers. Opinions expressed reflect those of Mr. Hendee, and he welcomes
your response, both in comments that follow and on-air at 281-558-5738 from
6-9 AM weekdays on KSEV.]
My thoughts on the 5th Circuit's Ramos & Compean decision
By Edd Hendee
On December 3, 2007 a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court heard
appeals on Case 06-51489, United States of America v. Ignacio Ramos; Jose
Alonso Compean. I was there seated in the front row witnessing the
proceedings and taking specific notes.
The 5th Circuit has a non-binding policy of rendering an opinion within 60
days on criminal trials so the questions, statements, and body language of
the three judges last December 3rd were clearly indicative of what a timely
opinion would be.
Yesterday July 28, 2008 the Court rendered a 46 page opinion upholding the
indictment, Federal Gun Charges (924C), trial proceedings, convictions, and
mandatory 10 year add-on sentences. Certainly the conclusion of the court is
not what we had expected or hoped for - but there are two obvious problems
in their ruling and stated opinion.
First there is no reconciliation of the statements of the court members
Jolly, Higginbotham, and Prado last December during the appeal hearing and
their ruling & opinion issued yesterday upholding the convictions and
sentences of Ramos & Compean.
Second the 46 page opinion released yesterday by the 5th Circuit is NOT
compelling and contains numerous direct conflicts of common sense and clear
intent of law with the written opinion of these judges.
Last December 3 during appeal proceedings I recorded the following
statements by these judges:
* Judge Jolly openly stated it "does seem the Government over-reacted"
in this prosecution
* All 3 judges aggressively went after the 924C gun charges pointing out
that there are no other cases where law enforcement officers were charged
with this crime
* Judge Higginbotham asked US Atty if every policeman who was accused of
using unreasonable force should face 924 C charges or are these
discretionary. Judges strongly disagreed with the application of the 924C
charges.
* The judges further raised questions that the witness Davilla was not a
low level mule but routinely ran drugs and would have likely carried a
weapon in the daily activities of smuggling drugs.
* There was NO indication that the judges considered the US Atty's
discretion reasonable nor that the 924C gun charges were warranted.
Further the 5th Circuit took 8 months to rule on this case which is clearly
outside of their own goal of 60 days in Criminal Cases. Did the case seem
too complex for a quick review? That's not evident in the 46 page opinion
where the judges state that the jury saw the evidence and the jury believed
the US Atty more than the defense. Wow - that's a landmark opinion.
The jury NEVER was told that the Gov't lead witness was a major mule who
repeatedly ran dope across the border.
The jury was NEVER told that the lead witness Davilla was implicated 4
months before the trial in another dope load and this was while he was under
immunity for the first dope load.
The jury was never advised that the witness Davilla broke the immunity by
not fully cooperating with names and information about his employer - the
cartel. In fact the US Atty told the three judges last December that their
guy - Davilla - "told some lies" in his testimony. Wow - they knew he lied
and they went along with it. Simply put that's perjury by Davilla and
suborning perjury by the US Atty team.
But the 3 judges conclude their opinion with the following statement:
"We conclude. For the most part, the trial of this case was about
credibility, and although the jury could have gone either way, it chose not
to believe the defendants' version of the crucial events of February 17. The
trial of the case was conducted fairly and without reversible error."
Really?
It should shock every citizen to find that the 5th Circuit finds no fault
with perjury, suborning perjury, denial of the 6th amendment rights to
confront an accuser, and the 6th amendment rights to a PUBLIC TRIAL.
When Judge Cordone sealed the reports of the October load - the 2nd drug
load run by Davilla and issued a gag order to both sides and families to not
speak of that load under penalty of imprisonment - the public was locked out
of the trial. So was the jury.
How do I say that? Just ask Juror Bob & Juror Claudia how they would have
voted on this jury had they known Davilla was running drugs while under
immunity. I did ask them that exact question. They answered "NOT GUILTY
for Ramos & Compean".
I rest my case. It's a shame the 5th Circuit missed it so badly.
Wonder what changed them from December to July?
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
