Help the Border Patrol agents imprisoned

To Rich, Powderman and others who have echoed this sentiment... what makes all of you so sure that the perp didn't have a weapon?
Click to expand...
Nothing, other than a jury that came to this conclusion after two weeks of testimony; including an aggressive and competent defense.

Tit for Tat:
What is it that you know (and aren't sharing) that would cause you to support a plea, not for Appeal, but for outright Pardon and Amnesty?
Rich
 
I know that over 92-94% of criminal cases never make it to court and what an indictment is. Was the information ever conatined in that sealed indictment ever released to the public? Since there was no evidence to convict Aldrete the contents of the indictment must not have anything in them so why not release them?
 
What is it that you know (and aren't sharing) that would cause you to support a plea, not for Appeal, but for outright Pardon and Amnesty?
Click to expand...

I don't ever recall saying I support a pardon in this case. I'm still ambivalent about it. What does bother me is that sooooo many here and on other boards have come out swinging against the agents when by your own statement we don't know really know much.

What also bothers me is the conduct of the government. Sure there is always framing the issue and legaleese, but some of the statements made in their statement border on fabrications. Add to that the fact that according to the defense attorney, the jury did not get to hear some vital facts as the perp was driving a van full of pot (something that would increase the likelihood that he would be armed) and I start to get that nervous itch that tells me something doesn't smell right.

I'm not saying they are innocent, nor am I saying they are guilty. All I am saying is that something seems very wrong with this trial.
 
Stage2: Your concern about evidence that the jury didn't hear, relative to how much pot was in the car is concern about something that's absolutely immaterial to this case, and that's probably why the judge didn't allow it in. The agents had no way of knowing, at the time of the altercation, that pot was in the car, so what difference could it possibly make that somebody might conclude that having pot in the car might have made it more likely that the perp was armed? Two of the agents misbehaved. Other agents on the scene didn't misbehave. Either the perp was armed or he wasn't. Why didn't the other agents testify that they saw a gun in the possession of the perp? Why did they testify against their brother agents?

I despise drugs and drug dealers. I was raised around l.e. and have great respect for the work that l.e.o.s do; however, your concerns about this particular case seem to me to border on the nonsensical.
 
Stage2: Your concern about evidence that the jury didn't hear, relative to how much pot was in the car is concern about something that's absolutely immaterial to this case, and that's probably why the judge didn't allow it in.
Click to expand...

A piece of information is legally relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a fact significant to the case. The fact that this guy was bringing in a very large load of dope is relevant as it would give him a substantial reaosn to be armed.

I have no doubt that the govt fought tooth and nail to exclude this evidence. Any lawyer with half a brain would. I don't feel that the judge made the corect ruling however.


The agents had no way of knowing, at the time of the altercation, that pot was in the car, so what difference could it possibly make that somebody might conclude that having pot in the car might have made it more likely that the perp was armed?
Click to expand...

Guilty or not, neither of these agents was a rookie. As a result, given their experience it wouldn't be impossible or even difficult to ascertain that this guy who is booking it through the badlands in a van may likely be a trafficker.
They don't have to be absolutely certian, but its no stretch that given what they saw, and where they were that it was likely that this guy was bringing in a load.

They are on record stating that this was the original reason why they pulled him over and if so, they were correct. As a result knowing that this was their state of mind, and that this guy was hauling close to 1000lbs of dope, its not any reach to assume its likely this guy was packing.
 
A piece of information is legally relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a fact significant to the case. The fact that this guy was bringing in a very large load of dope is relevant as it would give him a substantial reaosn to be armed.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

See Silverthorne v. US and Mapp v. Ohio. What you're looking at here falls under "fruit of the poisonous tree".

Simply put, the agents had NO way of knowing that there was dope in the vehicle. From what I can see in the transcripts posted thus far, they could not articulate that they had detected or noted anything that would lead a "reasonable and prudent person (in this case, a trained, cautious and prudent LEO)" to believe that contraband was present. Thus, there was not even a "reasonable suspicion", much less "probable cause".
 
Personally, I think this is a great thread. What I've learned from it thus far is that Jury by Trial of Peers is a cultural anachronism.

The Real Deal is Jury by Internet Info. Now, That's Justice!
:rolleyes:
Rich
 
So...if I am reading you correctly Stage 2

Law Enforcement can shoot anyone they want as long as that person is LATER found to be a crook:confused:

Because...you know...crooks carry guns all the time

So if you find out they are a crook then it is logical to assume they have/had a gun:rolleyes:

This must be known as the "get lucky" defense

With zero evidence you shoot at and wound someone...and then cover up the event....but you "get lucky" and it turns out he is a crook so...all is forgiven

Even if that crook was not breaking the law right now...you know he was going to eventually ...so it is all good
 
See Silverthorne v. US and Mapp v. Ohio. What you're looking at here falls under "fruit of the poisonous tree".

Simply put, the agents had NO way of knowing that there was dope in the vehicle. From what I can see in the transcripts posted thus far, they could not articulate that they had detected or noted anything that would lead a "reasonable and prudent person (in this case, a trained, cautious and prudent LEO)" to believe that contraband was present. Thus, there was not even a "reasonable suspicion", much less "probable cause".
Click to expand...

Mapp doesn't have any bearing here. From my understanding of what happened, the prosecutor excluded the evidence of the dope based on its relevance and prejudical effect and NOT based on how it was obtained. As a result, my original analysis still stands.


So...if I am reading you correctly Stage 2

Law Enforcement can shoot anyone they want as long as that person is LATER found to be a crook
Click to expand...

You are not only reading me incorrectly, I am questioning whether you are reading what I say at all.

Both agents testified that they believed that they saw something that was thought to be a weapon. If they were in fact being truthful then they had a credible fear of the perp using deadly force which would be a justified reason for shooting once things deteriorated as they did.

At the end of the day my point is not to show that this is definitively the case, only that it is plausible, and from what little we know, just as plausible as the situation in which the agents maliciously shot this guy.
 
Personally, I think this is a great thread. What I've learned from it thus far is that Jury by Trial of Peers is a cultural anachronism.

The Real Deal is Jury by Internet Info. Now, That's Justice!
Click to expand...

Not quite. One of the issues going up on appeal right now is an jury misconduct. Apparently 3 of the jurors did not think the defendants were guilty, but were told by either the foreman or another juror who misread the charge that a hung jury was not an option.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4508579

This wasn't an open and shut case as some would have us believe.
 
Not quite. One of the issues going up on appeal right now is an jury misconduct. Apparently 3 of the jurors did not think the defendants were guilty, but were told by either the foreman or another juror who misread the charge that a hung jury was not an option.
Click to expand...

Hm. Just read the article at the link, and some of the linked articles within the article.

I am NOT declaring mistrial, fire, murder and earthquake yet....

but from what those articles are saying, there is the faint rumbling of questions unanswered.

I find it very strange, though, that all of this information is "just now" coming to light. Is it true? Are these the bellwether of a gross miscarriage of justice? Or, perhaps the last gasp of a defense attorney?

I DO find it strange that a DHS agent went over into Mexico and somehow "found" the smuggler. How did he manage to find him? What tips did he have? How did he even START looking for the smuggler?

Mind you, I'm not convinced yet. But there is the beginning of a reasonable doubt.
 
I DO find it strange that a DHS agent went over into Mexico and somehow "found" the smuggler. How did he manage to find him? What tips did he have? How did he even START looking for the smuggler?
Click to expand...

I know you don't have much faith in the government, considering they haven't found the most wanted criminal Osama Bin Laden in over 5 years.

But how does the method of finding the smuggler, somehow tie into the innocence of the agents? Kind of a long shot don't you think, of the numerous questions one can ask, one focuses on this.
 
My point is simple. You are in the wrong place at the wrong time and get charged and arrested for a crime you know you did not commit. You go to trial and are convicted of the crime by a jury of your peers. Now, are you now guilty because the jury says you are, or are you still innocent because you know you are?
Click to expand...

You still don't have a point. From the wrongly accused's perspective, he is innocent. From the jury's perspective, he is guilty. How does that ties into this case, I have no clue.
 
I don't ever recall saying I support a pardon in this case. I'm still ambivalent about it. What does bother me is that sooooo many here and on other boards have come out swinging against the agents when by your own statement we don't know really know much.
Click to expand...

There's only swinging from the other side, because the side that supports the agents have been swinging the bat like crazy, hitting everything and anything around them. They hope by creating enough smoke, it will confuse the issue enough to cause enough doubt in the case.

What we are trying to do, is clear up some of that smoke.

Oh no it's two upright agents being framed by an evil drug smuggler. The government just loves illegals and mexicans, that's why they have done their best to lock those agents up. That's right, the judge was in it too, and the jury foreman. And the justice department, and the white house. It's a big conspiracy theory to keep the man down.
 
One of the issues going up on appeal right now is an jury misconduct.
Click to expand...
Persactly. And that is how it should be.

But this thread is not about us signing a petition for appeal of the case. That required no petition whatsoever. This thread calls for us to sign a Petition for Pardon.

Pardon: "a release from the legal penalties of an offense"

If anyone wishes to track and discuss the appeal, have at it in a new thread.
Rich
 
you can file an appeal because someone on the jury looked at the defendants "prejudiciously", it's a matter of course in trial law.
don't confuse that with the facts of the case against them.
 
STAGE 2 said:
And thats all I've been arguing all along.
Click to expand...
But that was an argument (presumably) made at trial. Not an argument for a pardon.

As Rich has already stated, the petition for Pardon is what this thread is about.
 
It just makes me curious that Rep. Ted Poe is working on the case of the two border agents. Before his election to Congress he was a respected jurist from Harris County, TX who came up with some pretty creative sentencing as a felony court judge. He was also the chief felony prosecutor for Harris County, TX. He strikes me as a law and order type of guy. So does he know something that a lot of us dont?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top