Regardless of your position on Ramos and Compean, most would agree that the debate would be much less visceral if the agents were free pending appeal, rather than jailed and subject to harm from other prisoners. I have said repeatedly that I did not understand why these guys were not allowed to be out pending appeal.
First, I should correct a misstatement of my own, some time back. I said that the prosecutor did not oppose release of the two pending appeal. In fact, what the prosecutor did not actively oppose was the release of the men between their sentencing date in October 2006 and their self-surrender date in mid-January 2007. The prosecutor, Debra Kanoff, affirmatively stated “the Government does not think the defendants pose a flight risk at this time” and left any other considerations to the “discretion of the Court.” (Sentencing Transcript, Oct. 19, 2006, pp. 74-75, link here.)
The Court, in fact, permitted the men to remain free and “self-surrender” in January 2007.
On October 25, 2006, the Court denied the motion for new trial. Assuming the Court addressed all grounds raised by the men, the only basis asserted for a new trial was that some jurors later claimed they were misled by incorrect factual statements of other jurors. (This would seem a rather perfunctory motion, but perhaps it was necessary to preserve certain points for appeal and the attorneys felt that a complete assertion of all arguments for a new trial would be ineffective before the trial judge.)
What happened afterward is hard to piece together from looking only at information on the the prosecutor’s and Court’s websites. In brief orders, the trial Court denied bond pending appeal for both Ramos and Compean. In both opinions, the Court said that no “exceptional reasons,” as required for release under 18 USC Sec. 3145, existed. (The statute states that a person may be released “if it is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such person’s detention would not be appropriate). The statute does not define “exceptional reasons” and apparently that is left to be decided on a case by case basis. Various cases addressing the “exceptional reasons” standard have concluded:
I did not see any cases in which the status of a defendant as a LEO was raised, but the case law indicates the determinaiton of “exceptional reasons” is within the judge’s discretion. From the information available on the websites, I do not know what “exceptional reasons” that the agents raised, though it may be in the Court file in El Paso.
What I found most curious, though, were statements in the opinion of the Fifth Circuit, which is hearing the appeal. On February 22, the Fifth Circuit denied the agents request for release during the appeal, stating that the agents “have not shown unique or unusual circumstances that justify their release based on an exceptional reason.” But the part that most caught my eye was this:
The motion of Ramos to seal his appeal of the district court’s denial of bond pending appeal and/or the memorandum in support of the motion for release pending appeal is GRANTED. The motion of the Government to seal its response to the appellants’ motions for release pending appeal is GRANTED.
Since Compean’s memorandum is apparantely not sealed, perhaps it is available in the court file to determine what the agents asserted as a basis for release.
All of this leaves several questions in my mind:
1. What were the arguments of the agents for release?
2. Why did the trial court not exercise its discretion in favor of release?
3. Did the Government ultimately oppose release in the sealed memorandum? (One of the written statements from Johnny Sutton’s office said that the district court properly applied the law which “mandated” detention pending appeal because of the conviction of a violent crime. One could infer from this that the Goverment opposed release, but the statement does not specifically address the Government’s position.) If so, why (considering the prosecutor did not consider them a flight risk for the puropses of release between sentencing and the self-surrender date)?
4. Why did Ramos file his motion to seal?
5. Could the subsequent jailhouse violence against one of the agents be used to make a new request for release pending appeal?
The answers to these questions may be as obvious as the nose on my face to one who is well-versed in this type of criminal prosecution. If so, perhaps one of LST’s readers can enlighten us. The fewer straw men in this case, the better.
Or, there may be more interesting answers to these questions. Of course, you are invited to postulate.
(And if we have anyone in El Paso who might be interested in looking at the public record for briefs and other items not in the transcripts or otherwise on the web sites, weigh in.)
Sorry for the length of this post, but nothing in this case seems simple.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
14 Responses to “Should agents be free pending appeal?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
YES!!!
Of course they should be free pending appeal. I would hope AG Gonzales would look into this whole scenario, but that may be hoping for nothing. They need a re-trial since two or three jurors thought it was unfair not to have all the evidence presented. Additionally, the Judge should have to answer as to why some of the evidence was withheld.
Absolutely Yes! There was no reason (flight risk, etc.) to incarcerate these men. Their families are suffering, not to mention the Ramos & Campean.
YES! Release these men. Give them a new trial, where they can be vindicated with all the evidence. Get them a decent judge who is fair. Let them be free and when it’s over , have the feds look at Mr. Suttons conduct and policy. Bye bye Johnny.
Alberto Gonzales is a former member of the board of La Rasa. Even though Ramos and Compean are Americans with hispanic roots (I hate the term “Mexican-Americans), Gonzales will never grant them more rights than the illegal aliens. We need to work to get rid of Gonzales and any other La Raza members working in the administration.
#5 Neo I had no idea and that tidbit of information explains everything to me! So Gonzales was the pay off to La Rasa for the hispanic vote that helped GW gain office? No wonder nothing is being done about the border and Johnny Sutton works for the Mexican Embassy. Gonzales has to go.
So the list of conspirators grows to
AED
Sutton
Me
Judge Cordone
That pesky court reporter
Presidente Bush
El Generale Alberto
The OIG
The DHS
The Fifth District Appellate Court
The Career Prosecutors
La Raza
The Government of Mexico
So far about 55,000 people
*sigh*
1
lol
Yes, they should remain out of prison until the first appeal is complete.
#8 indeed 1
Like I have said. Forget Sutton and any evidence. His job was to put these guys in jail and make GWB’s Mexican bosses happy.
Keep looking away from the shiny thing and you will see the big picture. North American “community”
Periodo, end of story. Its a done deal.
Agree they should be out of prison pending their appeals.
The transcripts were not released for a full year after the trial. That is extremely suspicious, and given everything else associated with this case, it is obvious that the transcripts were actually prepared a year ago but were withheld on purpose.
KEEP THEM LOCKED UP!