2 of 3

Yes

Write now Article Tools

The rule of law and the rights of the people have been under continuous assault in recent years. Nowhere has the rule of law been so grievously abused as the prosecution, trial and conviction of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.

These two well-respected and highly decorated Border patrol agents fired their weapons at a drug trafficking suspect in the course of their duties. When we issue weapons to policing agencies, we reasonable expect they may have reason to use them at some point, even if for self-defense. And that is exactly what Ramos and Compean tell us they were doing. The story of that incident and the resulting inadequacies of the trial that followed have resulted in these fine officers being sentenced to more than ten years in prison.

There is much dispute in the actual facts of the case: what is clear is US Attorney Johnny Sutton withheld evidence that likely would have resulted in a very different verdict.
Among facts which leave much doubt is the chain of evidence from the alleged bullet removed from Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, the actual ballistics evidence, the evidence of the doctor who treated Aldrete-Davila, the fact that Aldrete was arrested a second time with a large amount of drugs he was smuggling into the country while under a protected border pass from the US Attorney's office in conjunction with the case, the fact that the evidence of the 800 pounds of marijuana being transported that day was improperly processed, the fact that Sutton's office did nothing to ascertain the facts of Aldrete-Davila's history of drug running or his active participation in smuggling that day.

All of this evidence was suppressed and thus unheard by the jury who convicted the two. Johnny Sutton was the prosecutor who suppressed this evidence and who charged Ramos and Compean with a statute expressly written to provide harsh punishment to those convicted of using a gun in the commission of a crime. Use of this statute against policing authorities was improper in and of itself. Further, there was no violent crime committed by Ramos or Compean to which this statute could be appended.

Aldrete-Davila committed perjury on the stand in saying he was not a drug dealer and Sutton knew of that perjury and allowed it continue. Further, Sutton withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense that could have allowed them to present a more effective defense.
The fact that this trial could even have taken place is most questionable. The fact that a jury found Ramos and Compean

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should US attorney Johnny Sutton be forced to testify in the case of Ramos and Compean??
We want to hear your view. Write now!