Still more buzzing about border agents sentence
As the buzzing continues about border agents case (background here and here), I am pleased to see a more refined focus on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the severity of the sentences received by Border Patrol Agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos.
As noted in this recent post, Senator Dianne Feinstein last week wrote various public letters (available here) in which she expressed her concern that “the sentences in this case are too extreme.” It is heartening to see Senator Feinstein asking AG Alberto Gonzales tough questions about the the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the pursuit of enhanced sentences in this case.
Similarly, Debra Saunders now has this commentary in which she zeroes in on the sentencing unfairness that resulted from how prosecutorial discretion was exercised:
[U.S. Attorney Johnny] Sutton can point to inconsistencies in Ramos’ and Compean’s stories. He is right to argue that law enforcement officials cannot be allowed to shoot at unarmed suspects or lie about what they do.
For his part, Mr. Sutton offered both agents a plea bargain with a one-year sentence. But at trial, the U.S. Probation Office [sic] sought 20-year sentences. Prosecutors can argue that terms are stiff because of federal mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed with guns, but it was Mr. Sutton’s choice to throw the book at the agents — charging them for assault with a dangerous weapon, obstructing justice, lying about the incident and willfully violating Aldrete-Davila’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure — as well attempted murder, for which they were acquitted. That’s a long sheet for acts begun in the heat of pursuit.
Some recent related posts: