Time to Release Ramos and Compean

In 2005, two US Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, were involved in a shooting incident in the border area near El Paso in which a Mexican drug smuggler, Oswaldo Aldrete Davila, was shot in the buttocks while trying to escape by foot back across the Mexican border. Aldrete, who was driving a van loaded with marijuana, was chased by the agents on foot. During the incident, Aldrete was shot by one of the agents who maintained that the suspect, after a scuffle, had a suspicious object in his hand which appeared to be a gun. Subsequently, both agents were indicted by the US Attorney's Office, who used Aldrete as a witness. The agents were both convicted, and are now serving 10 and 11 year sentences in federal prisons. Last year, Ramos was severely beaten by Mexican prisoners at the Federal Prison facility in Yazoo, Mississippi after they recognized him as one of the Border Patrol agents involved in the incident.

All during this controversy, many supporters of the agents, including members of Congress like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, both running for president as Republicans, have pushed for the release of the two agents. As of this writing, President Bush has refused to pardon the two agents, backing the prosecuting US Attorney, Johnnie Sutton in the process.

In my view, I feel that President Bush should, at the least, commute the sentences of the two agents for the following reasons.

First, let me state at the outset, that as a former DEA agent, I recognize that there are federal guidelines that prohibit the shooting of a fleeing felon unless that person poses a threat to the life of the agent or other person. There are other guidelines that dictate that any shooting incident or discharge of a firearm be reported by the agent involved. It appears there may be some violation by Compean and Ramos in this regard. Nevertheless, I am troubled by certain aspects of this case.

First of all, Ramos and Compean stated that Aldrete was believed to have a possible firearm in his hand when the shooting occurred. True or not, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the agents in this regard. The US Attorney's Office maintains that this is countered by evidence that the two agents attempted to cover up the fact that they had fired at Aldrete.

Secondly, the Government, when it learned of the incident, reached out to Aldrete in Mexico, brought him across the border, treated his wounds and obtained his testimony against the agents in court. Not only that, but when Aldrete was subsequently arrested for bringing another load of marijuana into the US months after the shooting incident, this information was withheld from the court and the jurors deciding the fate of the two agents. This seems to me a clear violation of the Discovery Act, which dictates that any derogatory information regarding a prosecution witness, particularly a criminal witness, must be disclosed to defense for the consideration of the jury in judging the witnesses' credibility. Thus, the jurors were unaware that Aldrete had been involved in a subsequent smuggling venture. Indeed, the prosecution had advised the jury that Aldrete was a one-time violator only attempting to make some money to feed his family. Would the jury have voted to convict the agents had they known this information? According to at least one juror, the answer is no.

At this point, both agents have languished in prison for one year. Aldrete has recently been indicted for his later smuggling activities (which were withheld from the jury). Unlike some observers, I choose not to make any judgement about the US Attorney, Johnnie Sutton and his motives in prosecuting this case. I don't pretend to have all the facts. Yet, as much as I hate to put on a defense attorney's hat, I am greatly troubled by the fact that two agents were convicted on the testimony of a drug smuggler without the jury having the full amount of information regarding this witness. On legal grounds alone, it seems to me to be a miscarriage of justice and reversible error.

I don't much like the idea of presidential pardons unles the President is convinced that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I have previously written in my blog about the outrageous pardons issued by Bill Clinton, which seem to me to be a case of out and out bribery. However, this case seems to cry out for a commutation of sentence if not a pardon itself. Whatever transgressions Ramos and Compean may have committed, I feel they have been punished enough. A sentence of 10-11 years seems excessive.

I hope the Appeals Court in New Orleans, which just heard this case this week, will reverse the convictions. If not, I hope President Bush will issue a pardon or commutation. (I have previously sent the President such a message in writing.)

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean have suffered enough.