Johnny Sutton is testifying before Congress today on why he decided to send two border patrol agents to federal prison for ten years for shooting a drug smuggler in the butt.

In advance of the testimony, Patterico forwards some talking points on the case:

The testimony of Agent Oscar Juarez, who corroborated parts of the story of drug smuggler (and shooting victim) Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, is in DRJ’s opinion “of questionable reliability” because he gave several conflicting stories before trial. Indeed, DRJ notes, even the Government’s investigator didn’t believe Juarez had been fully honest.

The facts at trial demonstrate that Johnny Sutton originally misstated the nature of the immunity given to Aldrete-Davila. In a previous press release, Sutton claimed that the government had merely agreed that Aldrete-Davila’s testimony at trial could not be used against him — a limited form of immunity. DRJ notes, with citations to the transcript, that the immunity agreement was actually much broader. It was essentially a promise of transactional immunity — i.e., Aldrete-Davila cannot be prosecuted for his actions on the day he was shot.

Regarding the immunity agreement, DRJ notes: “There was no provision in Aldrete-Davila’s immunity agreement that the deal was off if he lied.” As a prosecutor, I must say that I find this astounding. The first rule of an immunity agreement is that the witness must tell the truth; thus, it is a standard condition that the deal is off if the immunized witness lies. I can’t imagine a legitimate reason that Aldrete-Davila’s agreement apparently contained no such stipulation.

More on Agent Juarez:

Agent Oscar Juarez corroborated parts of Aldrete-Davila’s version of the events of February 17, 2005, but Juarez’s testimony is of questionable reliability. The government’s investigator, Christopher Sanchez, did not believe Juarez’s initial statement, and he later learned that Juarez did not tell the whole truth. (Vol. XII, p. 18) By the time of the trial, Juarez had given 4-5 conflicting interviews and statements about the incident that Sanchez believed were incomplete or false. (Vol. XII, p. 15, 20-21,78-80, 84-88) Juarez’s testimony was so questionable and different from his initial interviews that ultimately he was threatened with indictment by the government. (Vol. XII, pp. 87-88) Thus, it’s interesting that the U.S. Attorney primarily relied on Juarez’s changeable testimony as conclusive proof that supports the verdict.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.