Washington, DC - On February 17, 2005 Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean pulled over a van driven by Osvaldo Aldrete-Dávila near the United States-Mexico border. When Aldrete-Dávila fled on foot, the agents shot at him 15 times, hitting him once with a bullet that penetrated his buttocks. The wounded man escaped, still on foot, to Mexico. After the shooting, the agents discovered that Aldrete-Dávila’s van contained 743 pounds of marijuana. Agent Compean collected his spent shell casings and neither agent reported the discharge of their weapons to their supervisors in the Border Patrol. Instead of reporting their actions, they filed a false report.

Agents Ramos and Compean hid the shooting until it came to light about a month later. The United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas pressed charges. During the trial, Border Patrol Sector Chief Luis Barker testified that Compean told Barker that he and Ramos covered up the shooting because they “knew [they] were going to get in trouble.” A federal jury in El Paso, Texas found them guilty of various crimes including causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and a civil rights violation. Their conviction for discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Ramos’s sentence amounted to a total of 12 years and Compean’s to 11 years. They have been serving their sentences since January 17, 2007. They are appealing their convictions.

The prosecutions of Ramos and Compean and the resulting sentences have been politically controversial and have received significant attention from interest groups and the local and national press. Some have said that the agents acted in self defense, that their actions were not wrong or shouldn’t be illegal, that Congress or President Bush should do something to free the agents, or that prosecutors filed inappropriate or excessive charges.

Congress does not have the authority to overturn or dismiss criminal court decisions. Only the President can pardon a criminal’s offense. However, as the branch of government charged with oversight, Congress should look into two specific aspects of this case: mandatory minimum sentencing and the federal government’s handling of this case.

At issue in Ramos and Compean’s appeal of their convictions is the appropriateness of the sentence. Their attorneys say the charge of discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, carrying a 10-year minimum sentence, was not appropriate. A federal judge on the three-member panel hearing the appeals case has publicly suggested that the charge was a prosecutorial overreaction. However, the assistant U.S. Attorney has argued that the former agents were treated fairly, as they could have received much harsher sentences for their convictions on other charges including assault with a deadly weapon.

Mandatory minimums enacted by legislative bodies ensure uniform sentencing in criminal cases. However, they can have the unfortunate effect of forcing judges to hand out much harsher sentences than the guilty parties deserve. In the cases of Ramos and Compean, Border Patrol agents who were pursuing a drug trafficker who did not have permission to be in the United States, the 10-year minimum sentence for a single conviction seems excessive. The jury had access to all relevant evidence and testimony, and determined that Ramos and Compean were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Congress cannot second-guess the jury’s decision, but it is within our purview to hold oversight hearings on the Justice Department.

Public debate would benefit by determining and clarifying the facts of the case. If any federal officials were overzealous in their duties, the public should know and Congress should take action. In March I wrote a letter to Congressman John Conyers, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, urging him to convene investigations or hearings to look into mandatory minimum sentencing and the conduct of federal officials in this case.

Border Patrol officers should be able to do their jobs, including using deadly force if necessary, without fear of being prosecuted. However the Ramos and Compean cases are resolved, officers in the future must be able to go about their work with the confidence that as long as they obey the law it will back them up when they feel compelled to defend themselves. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard this case last weekend and could provide relief to these former agents.