Ramos/Compean: smuggler's credibility questioned; second load while under court protection
Posted Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 9:19 am
From this:
Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, the Mexican drug smuggler given immunity to return to the United States and testify against two Border Patrol agents, was involved in smuggling a second load of marijuana into the United States after he was given court protection, records have confirmed...I'd certainly be interested in knowing whether any documents they gave him were used in that smuggling run, but unfortunately that isn't covered in the article. If that turns out to be the case, then I'd tend to think we'd be seeing some resignations.
...At the trial, Cardone ruled that Aldrete-Davila was not on trial. She ruled that no reference about the October 2005 drug offense was to be made to the jury and she sealed all records concerning that offense, despite vigorous defense objections that this information not only violated Aldrete-Davila's immunity grant, but also went to the heart of the defense argument that Aldrete-Davila's testimony was not credible.
Rohrabacher expressed continued outrage that Sutton had decided to grant immunity to an admitted drug dealer so he could prosecute two Border Patrol agents who were trying to apprehend him.
"Once Aldrete-Davila was caught a second time," Rohrabacher told WND, "it unmasks the indefensible nature of the prosecutor's decision to go after the Border Patrol agents. If the jury is not allowed to know about Aldrete-Davila's second offense, then Ramos and Compean did not get a fair trial."
..."What Ramos and Compean got was a screw job from day one by the U.S. attorney's office in order to send a message to all Border Patrol agents," Rohrabacher told WND. "The message from Sutton was that the President of the United States makes policy on the border, so don't get in the way. If you haven't gotten the message yet, this is an open border."
Tags:
Comments
Amanda (not verified)
Sun, 02/18/2007 - 20:54
Permalink
Judge Cardone: "But there's no lying, if that's what we're characterizing it as, until the October incident." Huh? Defense counsel Stillinger's jaw must have hit the floor at that response. I agree with Jeffrey Toobin that this is a whopper of an issue to appeal. When you have a criminal case where the prosecution's ENTIRE case is the word of a single witness and the defense is given ZERO opportunity to impeach that witness, a trial simply becomes a farce.