No written report exists that indicates that DHS has Jurisdiction in this case.........or is fleeing into Mexico~it ?

Sutton Statement re:Ramos and Compean conviction
August 11,2006
Page 3
Testimony elicited at trial clearly established that,until an investigation initiated at the Washington,
D.C.headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security,Office of the Inspector General began on March
4,2005,no written report had been filed,no oral report had been made,and no person in any official capacity
was cognizant of the fact that a shooting had occurred or a firearm had been discharged by any Border Patrol
Agent in the direction of an individual fleeing into Mexico after having failed to stop for immigration status
identification on February 17,2005.The only report of any law enforcement activity on file for the Fabens
Border Patrol Station on that date was an Immigration and Naturalization form I-44,Report of Apprehension
or Seizure,authored by both defendants and signed by Jose Alonso Compean.The very brief report stated
that after the driver of the van failed to pull over for an immigration check:“The driver of the van began
driving back south towards Mexico.The driver was able to abscond into Mexico.”The report,admitted into
evidence,then indicated that immediately after the driver absconded,defendant Ramos spotted the bags of
marijuana in the van.No written report exists that indicates that defendant Compean was assaulted by the
driver,tussled with the driver,was threatened by the driver ’s actions or thought the driver had a gun.Both
supervisors who arrived at the scene,after the incident was over,repeatedly asked defendant Compean if he
was assaulted or injured and if he wished for them to file a Report of Assault-Service Employees,which is
routinely completed if an agent reports being assaulted by a suspect.Compean did not wish such a report to
be filed.
This office did not prosecute the defendants because they had violated Border Patrol policies.They
were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender,but,while his
open hands were held in the air,Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of his shotgun.In fear
of what the agents would do to him next,the man ran away from the agents,who then fired at least 15 rounds
at him,although they had seen his open hands and knew that he was not holding a weapon and had no reason
to think that he had a weapon,hitting him once causing serious bodily injury.The references to policies are
made only to demonstrate that had the defendants believed that the shooting was justified,there was no reason
for them to conceal it from supervisors and remove evidence from the scene.The laws of the United States
make it a crime for law enforcement officers to use excessive force in apprehending suspects.It is a violation
of any person ’s Constitutional rights to shoot at them after they have attempted to surrender,knowing that
they are unarmed and pose no danger to the officers or anyone else.
At the initiation of their investigation,the DHS Office of Inspector General contacted Aldrete-Davila
who was at the time in Mexico.Aldrete-Davila was at first reluctant to cooperate with the investigation
because he feared that should he return to the United States,he could be prosecuted for the offenses
committed in relation to the load of marijuana he was driving on February 17,2005.In order to secure his
cooperation and appearance at trial in the United States,this office agreed that in return for his truthful
testimony he would not be prosecuted for the February 17,2005 offenses.The agreement does not immunize
any other conduct.
Based on all of the evidence admitted at the two week trial,including the lengthy testimony of both of
the defendants,the jury of twelve citizens heard all of the testimony,judged the demeanor and credibility of
the witnesses and unanimously found both defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of eleven of the
twelve counts alleged in the indictment,including assault with a dangerous weapon,assault with serious
bodily injury,discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence and wilfully violating
Aldrete-Davila ’s Constitutional,Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure,as well as
obstructing justice by intentionally defacing the crime scene,lying about the incident,and failing to report the
truth.
#####