A continuing miscarriage of justice
After eight months of consideration, border patrol agents Ramos and Compean’s appeal has been ruled upon. The ruling? Denied. The ruling was 3-0.
Let’s put aside the fact (for now) that the only witness against the perjured himself in the original trial (from the final paragraph of the ruling: “The trial of the case was conducted fairly and without reversible error”).
Let us also put aside (for now) the fact that a number of jurors have stated that if they had been made aware of Davila’s other arrest for drug running (goes to credibility, your honor) they would have decided differently.
The only reason their sentence was over 10 years instead of 1-2 years was a supposed violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). This is the law which adds a mandatory sentence of 10 years for using a firearm during the commission of a crime. The article referenced below says:
Note that this statute does not say that the law enforcement agent must be the one committing a crime, which leaves it open to interpretation that the criminal could be committing a crime and the law enforcement agent could be charged with using his firearm to apprehend the criminal since a firearm was used during a crime occurring.
However the actual text of the law says this:
…
any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
…
(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
That is quite a bit to wade through, so I will elide the superfluous words below, I have also highlighted key words and phrases, hopefully without altering the meaning of the reading.
To me, it says “any person who, during … any crime of … drug trafficking … for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses … a firearm …”
I am sorry, but to me this clearly states that the penalty applies to the person committing the crime, not anybody else (especially law officers) who happen to use their weapon while someone else is committing the crime! Am I reading this wrong??
Note that, having served already 1 year and 8 months, if the violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) were the only thing dismissed they would be OUT now!
I have not yet read the ruling document itself. After I have I may have more to say on this matter.
References:
article: http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002881.html
ruling: http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/ramos-compean-appeal-ruling.pdf
