Beyond The Horizon
The El Chapo Files: El Chapo And The SAMS (Part 5) (7/5/24)
The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:
- Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.
- Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.
- Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.
- Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.
- The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.
(commercial at 9:26)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)
- Duration:
- 14m
- Broadcast on:
- 05 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're picking up where we left off with the L-Chapel files and the SAM modification request. See, the SAMs with modification do not interfere with the defendant's ability to retain counsel. The defendant argues that the SAMs as applied in pinch upon his right to counsel by restricting his inability to one communicate with family via private counsel for the limited purposes of ascertaining and securing the funds necessary to retain counsel and to directly communicate with his wife Ms. Coronel. The government agrees to modify the SAMs to allow current counsel and private attorneys who have been pre-cleared by the government to meet with the defendant to send messages from the defendant that are pre-screened by the government to his family for the limited and specific purpose of relaying the defendant's desire to retain private counsel and the information necessary to secure the assets for such representation. As discussed above given the possibility that the defendant will send coded messages to his family members, directing them or cartel members to harm other persons, the pre-screening requirement for such communications is necessary, notably because these communications are from the defendant to his attorneys to third parties, the communications are not privileged. This accommodation therefore is reasonable under the circumstances, while the government believes this limited modification is appropriate here, it continues to object to allowing direct communication between the defendant and Ms. Coronel. For reasons stated in the government's first and second ex-parte submissions, the court should not permit the defendant to have direct contact with Ms. Coronel. Even if the court were to modify the SAMs to allow the defendant to communicate with Ms. Coronel only for the limited purpose of retaining counsel, there is no guarantee that these limited interactions would not thwart the purpose of the SAMs, which is to prevent serious bodily injury or death. As discussed above, even seemingly innocuous statements can be dangerous communications designed to harm individuals outside of prison who may be witnesses or witnesses' family members. CEG Turner 482, US at 93, noting that inmate could easily use coded language. Hamoud, 381, F.3D, at 334, Johnson, 223, F.3D, at 673. Salome at 152, F.3D at 108. Given the lengthy and close relationship between the defendant and Ms. Coronel, they may have already have a code in place to communicate with each other while the defendant is in custody. Moreover, through multiple in-person meetings or phone calls, they would have the opportunity to develop a code over time, thus having a federal agent monitor such visits or phone calls would not sufficiently ensure that the nature of their communications is innocuous and limited to the matter of retaining counsel. For these reasons, direct communication between the defendant and Ms. Coronel could facilitate the transmission of coded messages in a way that pre-screened communications from the defendant to his family members would not. In any event, Ms. Coronel's own actions, since the implementation of the SAMs cast doubt on whether she would limit her communications with the defendant to the topic of retaining counsel and securing funding. As noted above, despite the fact that the government had informed Defense Council that it had denied Ms. Coronel's permission to visit the defendant, she appeared at the MCC anyway with a Mexico-based attorney and demanded to see the defendant. Her flagrant willingness to disregard the SAMs is evident. While Ms. Coronel may be able to assist the defendant in retaining private counsel, she is by no means the only person available who can assist the defendant in this endeavor. For instance, as noted above, the defendant's sister has reached out to some private counsel about the prospect of representing the defendant. The government has learned that at least one of those private attorneys has in fact visited the defendant. Similarly, as noted above, the defendant has at least one adult child who is in the United States and is a citizen; therefore, the court should reject the defendant's spacious insistence that Ms. Coronel is the only person who can assist the defendant retaining counsel and decline to modify the SAMs. Part 4. The SAM's restriction are prisoner-specific. The defendant claims that the SAM's restrictions are not specific to his circumstances and thus should be vacated, but the SAM's restrictions imposed on the defendant specifically address the concerns outlined by the Attorney General in its original memorandum dated February 3, 2017. The defendant has a history of extreme violence and demonstrates that he will stop at nothing to obtain his freedom and to further his own interests. Evidence of the defendant's violent history is overwhelming, as documented in the government's detention memorandum and other court filings, the defendant regularly used torture, murder, and kidnapping to maintain control in the ranks of the cartel. To punish members of rival drug trafficking organizations and to exact revenge on individuals who sought to bring the defendant or other members of the cartel to justice. Indeed, in its second ex-parte submission, the government provided specific instances of murders and attempted murders by the defendant and the cartel of persons suspected of cooperating with the government as well as evidence of the defendant's efforts to corrupt ongoing investigations into him. Some of these attempted murders occurred while the defendant was incarcerated. As detailed on that submission, the defendant also had demonstrated a history of using his representatives to further his criminal enterprise. For instance, throughout his criminal career, the defendant has relied upon attorneys and family members to obstruct law enforcement investigations and aid his crimes. Accordingly, the SAM's restrictions are specifically tailored to address the defendant's extremely serious and dangerous behavior. The defense attempts to distinguish this case from others on the grounds that the defendant has not done anything specific since his arrest to warrant SAM restrictions. That argument is unavailing. There is nothing in the SAM's regulations or the applicable laws that suggest that SAM's may only be imposed after a particular defendant causes the very harm that the SAM's are designed to prevent. The reason that SAM's restrictions were imposed in this case included the defendant's pre- arrest behavior and ability to cause death and injury to others. In a case cited by the defendant, United States v. Sarniev, 13.cr-1020-GAO, MAS 2013, the defendant was charged with heinous crimes. Yet other than the crimes themselves, there was nothing in the defendant's past that specifically warranted SAM's restrictions. But in the instant case, the defendant has already proved that SAM's restrictions are necessary, giving his past behavior. The government should not have to wait for the defendant to undertake further violent actions in order to justify the SAM's restrictions, rather SAM's restrictions are designed to prevent death or serious injury, and the court should uphold them in this case because the defendant's history, characteristics, and prior conduct demonstrate that he's likely to seek to cause such harm to others. 5. The SAM's do not violate the defendant's six and First Amendment rights. The defendant claims that the SAM's restrictions violate his six and First Amendment rights because one, he cannot correct allegedly false accounts of his life that are widely available to the public, hindering his right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment, and two, he is only permitted to meet with his defense team, immediate family members, and religious personnel, and cannot engage in group prayer violating the freedom of association and religion under the First Amendment. The defendant's claims are without merit. First, the SAM's restrictions do not violate the defendant's six amendment rights by restricting his ability to make public comments. The defendant's counsel possess the ability to correct any purported false accounts of his life to the public. In fact, the federal defenders have given press conferences after each of the defendant's court appearances and filed multiple documents on the public docket, advocating for the defendant and advancing his viewpoint. See brief number three, claiming government's allegations of defendants narcotic trafficking in detention memorandum and press conferences legend and myth. The press has also widely reported defense counsel statements. For example, numerous news outlets reported on the instant motion, CEG El Chapo's lawyers, as say he's suffering hallucinations while locked down in isolation. Moreover, to the extent the defendant complains about his public image as an narcotics trafficker and specifically the government allegations in its detention memorandum and press conference, the defendant is cultivated and perpetrated this image of himself. See Sean Penn's El Chapo speaks rolling stone January 9, 2016. The defendant was quoted as saying, "I supply more heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana than anybody else in the world. I have a fleet of submarines, airplanes, trucks and boats. Watch El Chapo's exclusive interview in its 17 minute entirety, Rolling Stone January 12, 2016. Second, the SAM's restrictions on visitation in group prayer do not violate the defendant's First Amendment rights. The Second Circuit has repeatedly held up SAM's restrictions at limit and inmates First Amendment rights when they are reasonably related to the government's peniological concerns. City Felipe, 148, F.3D at 110 and 11, Second Circuit, 1998, rejecting inmates' First Amendment argument on the grounds that the SAM restrictions permitted him to exercise his First Amendment right in a more limited manner, citing Thornburg, 490 U.S. at 417 and 418. The court and Turner did not require the prisoners be afforded other means of communicating with inmates at other institutions. Under it held, it was sufficient if other means of expression remained available. In Felipe, the court sentenced the defendant, the former leader of the Latin Kings gang, to a life imprisonment. But he continued to engage in criminal conduct while behind bars, including ordering the murder of gang rivals, 148 F.3D at 106. Accordingly the court imposed special confinement conditions on the defendant, which included a total ban on correspondence and visits with others, except for his attorney and close family members approved by the court, and monitoring all of the correspondence and visits with anyone except his attorney. I.D at 107, applying the Turner test, the Second Circuit, concluded that his case warranted such severe restrictions and did not violate the defendant's First Amendment rights. Moreover, in El Hagi, where the Al Qaeda-affiliated defendant was subject to pretrial SAM's restrictions similar to those here, the Second Circuit again rejected the claim that the conditions of confinement violated the defendant's First Amendment rights. C.L. Hagi, 213, F.3D, at 81 and 82. Thus Felipe and El Hagi make clear that the SAM's may be implemented when needed and do not violate a defendant's First Amendment rights. Here is discussed in the detention memorandum and detailed in the government's exparté submissions. The defendant's prolific use of violence, including murder and torture, his history of obstructing ongoing investigations, prison escapes, and operating the Sinaloa cartel from within prison justify the SAM's restrictions on the defendant's visitation and commingling with other inmates, thereby a precluding group prayer. Given the defendant's past conduct, consistent with the Second Circuit's decision in Felipe and El Hagi, any SAM's restrictions that arguably impact the defendant's First Amendment rights are valid and necessary. In 2006, the defendant's isolation does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Throughout his brief, the defendant laments the solitary nature of his confinement and claims that the SAM's violate his Fifth Amendment right to due process. As noted above, the defendant has been visited by his counsel, paralegal and staff members, of the federal defenders and private attorneys on a near-delly basis since the day of his arrival in the United States on January 19, 2017. The visits by Defense Council and its staff on some occasions have lasted up to five hours per day, see Supra at nine and ten. Many of the visits by the federal defender staff have been for the purpose of teaching the defendant to read and speak English and to read him newspapers. In addition to these lengthy visits, the defendant has one hour of recreation daily in a room equipped with exercise equipment and a window allowing for fresh air and light. In contrary to the defendant's claims, his cell has a frosted window that allows daylight into the room. Although the defendant claims that his mental health is deteriorating to the point where he has begun to have auditory hallucinations, a visit of the defendant by a staff psychologist in MCC revealed that the defendant had merely been hearing sound from a radio that a staff member in the defendant's MCC unit had been playing. The solitary circumstances of the defendant's confinement are reasonably related to legitimate peniological interests as described above, because the government implemented the SAMs to address the significant security concerns posed by the defendant. The SAMs are reasonably related to those serious concerns. They should be upheld. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the court should deny the defendant's motion to vacate the SAMs except that the court may modify the SAMs to allow defense counsel and private counsel who have been pre-cleared to meet with the defendant to send pre-screen communications to the defendant's family members for the limited purpose of communicating the defendant's desire to retain particular counsel and the logistics of obtaining the funds to do so. This was signed by Bridget M. Road who was the acting United States Attorney of the Eastern District at the time this was going down. Alright folks, well that's going to do it for the El Chapo and SAMs documentation, but have no fear. We have plenty more when it comes to the El Chapo files. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.