Mr. Speaker, if the prosecution negligently or intentionally or by incompetence fails to give beneficial information to the defense, then our law says a new trial should be ordered. In the Ramos and Compean border agents trial, the prosecution based its whole case on the testimony of a drug smuggler who not only brought in $1 million worth of marijuana to the United States but was given immunity for it. He was portrayed as just a mule trying to get some money for his poor sick mama. Well, now it seems that after he got immunity for his crimes and while waiting to testify against Ramos and Compean, he brought in another large load of marijuana.
Here is the DEA report on the second case. I have read it. This case is simple enough that a third-year law student could prosecute it. But the U.S. Attorney's Office refused to prosecute the drug smuggler in the second case, and the jury never heard about this matter. The jury should have known about the second case to judge the credibility of the drug smuggler's testimony. The border agent should receive a new trial. Let the jury hear the truth about the star witness the Federal Government made a backroom deal with.
And that's just the way it is.