Beyond The Horizon
The El Chapo Files: El Chapo And The Reply To The Motion For A New Trial (Part 1) (7/6/24)
Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the notorious Mexican drug lord, has filed a motion for a new trial based on several key arguments.
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: El Chapo claims his previous legal team provided inadequate representation. Specifically, he argues that they failed to explore a plea bargain and did not object to government motions regarding classified information
- Juror Misconduct: A significant part of his motion centers on allegations of juror misconduct. An anonymous juror told Vice News that some jurors had accessed media coverage during the trial, which included prejudicial information about Guzmán. This alleged misconduct, according to El Chapo’s defense, compromised the fairness of the trial.
- Extradition Issues: Guzmán also challenges the legality of his extradition from Mexico, arguing that the agreement stipulated he should be tried in Texas or California, not Brooklyn .
- Pretrial Detention Conditions: He contends that the harsh conditions of his pretrial detention at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, which included perpetual solitary confinement and constant lighting, impaired his ability to participate in his defense.
In this episode, we continue our exploration of the El Chapo Files and the story of one of the most notorious crime bosses in history.
(commercial at 7:11)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
El Chapo defense reply motion for new trial - DocumentCloud
- Duration:
- 13m
- Broadcast on:
- 06 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
- Hi, I'm Dalvet Quince. One way to help manage type two diabetes is to regularly exercise. My exercise program can help get you into a routine that works for you. Keep in mind, managing butt sugar also takes the right. - Diet, hi, I'm celebrity chef Franklin Becker. Ever since I was diagnosed with type two diabetes, I've adapted my cooking style without sacrificing flavor. If you wanna learn more tips about diet and exercise, visit mytype2transformation.com. - An official message from Medicare. - A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can save too. With Medicare's extra help program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp. Paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services. - What's up everyone? And welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're gonna begin taking a look at El Chapo and his request for a retrial. United States government versus Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman-Lirea. Zero nine CR 466 BMC. Reply memorandum further supporting Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman-Lirea's rule 33 motion for retrial upon an evidentiary hearing statement. Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice the old saying goes. No empty slogan. That injunction has achieved immortality for good reason and sharing the appearance of justice promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. Thereby preserving respect for the rule of law. Both are staples in our scheme of ordered liberty. In the case before the court, a juror and Joaquin Guzman's trial voluntarily reached out to a disinterested journalist and went on video to report for public consumption for the whole world to read and know grave misconduct of their own and by their fellow jurors. To recap, the juror maintained that multiple panel members had pervasively violated their oath and rampantly flouted the court's instructions in a cluster of ways. Several jurors at least five, including the subject jur, followed the case in the media during the trial. They did so in part by routinely and constantly checking Twitter feeds from the journalist in question, Vice News reporter Keegan Hamilton and others in attendance. Peppering the frenzied media coverage, which the court dubbed unparalleled, were accounts of graphically provocative evidence ruled out of Guzman's trial. Also figuring prominently, updates on developments occurring in the jury's absence along with pronouncements of Guzman's guilt that preceded the proof's close and the start of deliberations. Though instructed not to discuss the case before retiring to deliberate jurors broke that rule a bunch of times, including on the ride home, among their expressed topics of discussion, the latest media coverage. Of the reports on evidence ordered withheld from the panel's consideration, the most explosive involved a claim publicly unveiled on the eve of deliberations that Guzman had drugged and raped girls as young as 13. At least five deliberating jurors in two alternates knew and talked about the child rape allegations, branding them disgusting and totally wrong if true. Worse, the subject juror read before arriving at the courthouse, a Hamilton tweet reporting that your honor was likely going to meet with the jurors in private and ask whether they had seen the story. Armed with that tip, the juror alerted the others in advance to the coming inquiry and convinced them to lie to the court, falsely denying knowledge of the blockbuster child molestation charge. I had told them if you saw what happened in the news, just make sure that the judge is coming in and he's gonna ask us so keep a straight face. So he did indeed come to our room and ask us if we knew and we all denied it, obviously. Another external item, jurors knew. Apparently talked and seemingly misled the court about was an adulterous affair widely reported during trial. A defense lawyer allegedly had with one of his clients. Moments after answering negatively a vague in-camera question from your honor, had the jury seen any recent media coverage around the time the alleged affair surfaced, one of their number promptly used a smartwatch to find an article discussing it. Finally, despite an extensive jury selection process, that feature detailed written questionnaire, running 31 pages, the subject juror withheld during Vordir, their burning desire to participate in the case of the century. A once in a lifetime chance to be part of history, compounding that omission, the juror took and kept copious trial notes against the court's instructions. Sure, you can parse undersell in a sale to death on paper this self-inculpatory spurt of declarations against interest. That's to attack the government's opposition attempts at nauseum, in page after eye glazing page. But we've never pretended the juror's assertions are conclusive or irrebuttable, as the government's hair-splitting approach, passing lip service to the appropriate standard aside functionally demands. And they don't even have to be at this preliminary stage, otherwise, there would be no need for a hearing. The issue, it must be remembered, is not whether the defendant is presently able to prove his case conclusively, rather, its weather is showing is sufficiently strong to warn an investigation to discover the truth. Sufficiently strong to warn an investigation is what the juror's revelations unmistakably are. Were this any other defendant, few would seriously dispute that they present clear, strong, substantial, and incontrovertible evidence as the second circuit liberally construes those terms of specific, non-speculative improprieties. To echo our opening papers, that court has long required post-trial misconduct hearings upon a relatively modest showing of reasonable grounds to investigate. Here a juror with no obvious ulterior motives voluntarily approached a neutral third party to accuse themselves and their counterparts in a published report circulated across the globe of, one, brazenly violating their oath and thumbing their collective nose at the court's instructions by two, actively searching for and exposing themselves to the most incendiary publicity throughout Guzman's trial, and then three, allegedly colluding and lying to the court's face when asked about it. If those circumstances don't provide reasonable grounds to investigate, then what would qualify? In this light, the government's relentless nit-picking bristles with circular reasoning and proves too much. Like the juror's own contentions, it merely points out various unknowns and raises many unanswered questions, serving only to punctuate the need for a hearing. After all, resolving unanswered questions is a hearing central office. Against that backdrop, leaving the jurors daunting allegations unexamined, whitewashing or sweeping them under the rug, due largely to Guzman's notoriety, would indelibly tank the verdict's legitimacy. Such a dreary prospect defies the heightened solicitude, traditionally afforded infamous defendants in high-profile cases, occur popular passions and check the community's thirst for revenge or retribution. And if that specter wasn't bad enough, letting the cloud linger would have broader and more damaging institutional implications. It would stain the reputation for uncompromising fairness and objectivity that sets our system apart and makes it a model for other nations, creating a result-oriented perception, diminishing us both at home and abroad. Even more pointedly, it would belie this court's stirring post-Verdic speech quoted at length in the government's memo, reducing it to so many idle words and unfulfilled promises. And it would make hypocrites of us all in the bargain, shattering our pretenses to superiority and rendering our system only incrementally better than those Guzman allegedly corrupted. - We all have somewhere we're trying to get to. As the largest energy producer in Colorado, Chevron is helping meet rising demand, and we're working to do it responsibly. Our next-gen, tankless facilities reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our operations by more than 90% compared to our older designs, working to provide Colorado with energy that's affordable, reliable, and ever cleaner. So everyone can get to where they want to be. - You've arrived. That's energy and progress. Visit chevron.com/tankless. - An official message from Medicare. - A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save too. With Medicare's extra help program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year or a married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. - Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. - Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp, paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services. - It would in short make a farce of the core virtues thought to distinguish our system of justice. With all of that in mind, the government's resisting so strenuously an investigation to discover the full truth and scope of what happened here can only rank as disappointing. For it is a fundamental that a prosecutor's job is to pursue justice, not win a case. Why then does the government resort to 96 pages of overkill to avoid the sort of straightforward post trial inquiry that's commonly conducted in our circuit? Why does it protest too much? What's it so afraid to find out? To ask these questions is to certify a hearing necessity, the argument. Logic law and justice compel searching evidentiary hearing and a fair retrial. Professing evidentiary deficiencies and reliability concerns the government says the jurors' vice allegations don't deserve a hearing because they're vague, conclusory, and cannot be credited. Even assuming their truth, it urges alternatively any juror misconduct worked, no prejudice, counseling summary denial of Guzman's motion. Both contentions fell. One, the jurors' vice allegations, amply suffice to warrant a hearing. Our statement unmasked the major analytic and conceptual flaws, dooming the government's bid to discredit the jurors' allegations and poll calls in the vice report to quickly review A. The government's vastly exaggerates the showing need to mandate and require a post trial jury misconduct hearing in our circuit. Clear, strong, substantial, and incontrovertible evidence of specific improprieties construed simply to mean reasonable grounds for investigation. While a single stray sentence disclaims any need for conclusive or irrebuttable proof, the rest of the government's 96-page brief and oxymoron, we know, essentially demands just that. B. By alleging deficiencies and contradictions in the vice report, attacking its source reliability and competing hypotheses, the government raises classical credibility issues that go to way rather than substance, merely amplifying the need for a hearing. If the jurors' allegations don't add up or risk inaccuracy, it doesn't follow that you just cast them aside on a prosecutor say so, know you hold a hearing to find out why, to resolve the claim discrepancies, reconcile the supposed inconsistencies, if you can, and generally get to the bottom of the matter. The remedy for allegations of juror partiality, stemming from outside influence is a hearing with prejudice presumed. In effect, the government accuses the jur, the author, or both of lying, with no clear motive to do so as it candidly admits, how can the court evaluate their credibility much less dismiss their accounts out of hand without hearing them in person? All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up this first episode right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna pick up with part C. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. - An official message from Medicare. - A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can save too. With Medicare's Extra Help program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp. - Paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. - High five casino. - High five casino is a social casino with real prizes and big, biggest hits at high five casino.com. The hottest games right from Vegas and all winnings go straight to your bank account. Hundreds of exclusive games, free daily rewards, and come back to get free coins every four hours, only at high five casino.com. - High five casino is a social casino. No purchase necessary. Boy, we're prohibited. Play responsibly terms in the edition supply. See website for details at high the number five casino.com.