Beyond The Horizon
The El Chapo Files: El Chapo And The SAMS (Part 3) (7/1/24)
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 8:50)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)
- Duration:
- 13m
- Broadcast on:
- 01 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
It is Ryan Seacrest here. There was a recent social media trend, which consisted of flying on a plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment. But a better trend would be going to Chumbakacino.com. It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket. Chumbakacino has over 100 online casino style games, all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane. So grab your free welcome bonus now at Chumbakacino.com. Sponsored by Chumbakacino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group. Voidware prohibited by law. 18+ terms and conditions apply. What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're picking up where we left off with the El Chapo files and that's with the argument over the SAMs. Two, the SAMs do not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The defendant claims that the SAMs infringe upon his constitutional rights of due process and hinder his ability to prepare his own defense. Specifically, the defendant claims that the SAMs are punitive and violated his first, fifth, and six amendment rights. The second circuit has rejected nearly identical claims in the past. See United States versus El Hagey. 213F, 3D, 74. Second circuit, 2000. The SAMs here are warranted because they are reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing the defendant from contacting persons associated with the Sinaloa cartel. And certain other third parties who could cause death or serious bodily injury to potential witnesses and their families. In addition, no reasonable alternative means exist. Accordingly, the SAMs do not infringe on the defendant's constitutional rights. As such, the court should reject the defendant's claims. A, SAMs are constitutional and valid under established law. It is well settled that restrictive conditions of pretrial detention may pass constitutional muster so long as they are administrative rather than punitive in nature. See United States versus Salerno, 481, US 739, 746 through 751, 1987. Bell versus Wolfish, 441, US 520, 535 through 540, 1979, Boschiano versus Lindsey, 530F.SUPP, 2D 435, 445, Eastern District of New York, 2008. Accordingly, a court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate government purpose. Bell 441, US at 538, Boschiano 530, F.SUPP.2D at 444 and 45. See Turner versus Safley 482, US 78, 89, 1987, upholding regulations of inmate to inmate communications as reasonably related to legitimate security concerns. L. Hagie, 213, F.3D at 81. Upholding similar SAM restrictions for pretrial detainee as constitutional. United States versus Felipe, 148, F.3D, 101, 110, Second Circuit, 1998. Upholding restrictions similar to SAMs as reasonable and finding no due process violation. United States versus Soder, 272, F.SUPP, 2D, 348, 369, SDNY 2003, upholding requirement of affirmation from an attorney as a reasonable measure for effectuating SAM's restrictions. In the absence of a detention, officials express intent to punish, the court's determination generally turns on whether an alternative purpose to which the restriction may rationally be connected is assignable for it and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned to it. Boschiano, 530F.SUPP.2D at 445. Quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 538 and 39. The second circuit in reviewing whether restrictive pretrial conditions violated defendants due process rights has applied the test established in Turner. In Turner, the Supreme Court identified four factors for evaluating whether a regulation relating to confinement is reasonable. Specifically whether one a valid rational connection exists between the regulation and the purported government interests. Two, alternative means for exercising the constitutional right at issue remain available. Three, accommodation of the right asserted by the prisoner will have a significant impact on the prisoner's fellow inmates, prison staff or prison resources. And four, there is an absence of ready alternatives to the regulation. Turner 482 U.S. at 89 through 91. See also, LHE 213F.3D at 81. Recognizing four factor test in Turner as the standard by which the SAM's restrictions should be reviewed. The court in Turner made clear that the last factor is not a least restrictive alternatives test. Prison officials do not have to set up and then shoot down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating the claimant's constitutional complaint. But if an inmate, claimant can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner's rights at the minimalist cost to valid, peniological interests, a court may consider that is evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard. The Turner court further recognized that courts must afford prison administrators, deference in managing detention facilities as courts are ill-equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. Turner 482 U.S. at 84. Similarly, the Supreme Court has caution that when determining whether a pretrial condition is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, a court must be mindful that such considerations are within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials. And in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters. Bashiano530F.supp.2D at 445, quoting Bell 441 U.S. at 540 and .23 547. This deference can have particular significance when the restrictions at issue have been implemented for security purposes. C.E.G. Thornburg versus Abbott 490 U.S. 401, 407, 1989. An analysis of the four factors in this case demonstrates that the SAM's restrictions are reasonable and neither in pinge on the defendant's due process rights, nor prejudice his ability to prepare his own defense. B. The SAMs are reasonably related to legitimate peniological interest. As detailed above, pursuant to CFR 28 section 501.3, the attorney general made direct BOP to implement SAMs that are reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury pursuant to the attorney general's finding that a prisoner's communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons. In this case, the attorney general directed the BOP to implement SAMs with respect to the defendant because he found that there was ample evidence demonstrating a substantial risk that the defendant's communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of serious bodily injury to persons. As described above and in the government's prior ex-partase emissions, the defendant has an established history of acting through third parties to operate his vast violent drug cartel, silence potential witnesses, and orchestrate not one, but two, elaborate escapes from prison. Accordingly, based upon the attorney general's findings in this case and the fact set for the above, there is a legitimate governmental interest in limiting the defendant's contacts and communications. C. Boschiano, 530, F.SUPP.2D at 446, finding that the government's purpose of preventing harm to those whom the defendant may wish to harm end up inhibiting his ability to oversee the operations of the Banano crime family, widely known for its propensity to order and commit violent acts are legitimate purposes, citing L. Hagee, 213F.3D at 81 and 82. The defendant's confinement conditions are reasonably related to the purpose of inhibiting his ability to harm others outside and inside prison. Specifically, the challenge communication restrictions are reasonably necessary to ensure that others do not pass on, whether intentionally or inadvertently, forbidden messages from the defendant to third parties. The courts have long recognized this concern as a legitimate justification for SAMs under 501(a), C. Turner, 482, US at 93. In any event, prisoners could easily write in jargon or codes to prevent detection of the real messages. United States versus Hamoud, 381F.3D, 316, 334, fourth circuit, 2004. A conversation that seems innocuous on one day may later turn out to be of great significance, particularly if the individuals are talking in code. - Step into the world of power, loyalty, and luck. - I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse. - With family, canollies, and spins mean everything. - Now, you wanna get mixed up in the family business. - Introducing the Godfather at ChampaCasino.com. Test your luck in the shadowy world of the Godfather's slots. - Someday, I will call upon you to do a service for me. - Play the Godfather. Now at ChampaCasino.com. - Welcome to the family. - No purchase necessary, VDW Group. We're prohibited by law, 18 plus, terms, and conditions apply. US versus Johnson 223, F.3D, 665, 673, 7 circuit 2000. And we know that anyone who has access to a telephone or is permitted to receive visitors may be able to transmit a lethal message in code. United States versus Salome, 152, F.3D, 88, 108, Second Circuit, 1998, because a judge was in jail as his telephone calls were monitored, a judge and use have spoken code when discussing the bomb plot. Poshiano, 530, F.SUPP, Second District at 440, 446, and 447. Upholding SAMs were a defendant demonstrated ability to pass messages in coded language to order violence. United States versus Ali, 396, F.SUPP, 2D, 703, 709, Eastern District, Virginia, 2005. Talking note that Al-Qaeda trains its followers to use a variety of means to communicate with their Confederates from prison. For example, the argument that the SAMs restrict defense counsel from communicating messages they perceive to be innocuous on the defendant's behalf is rebutted by the prospect that those seemingly innocuous messages are, in fact, coded communications, whose dangerous intent will be clear to the recipient, if not the messenger. Notably, the Second Circuit has affirmed similar conditions of confinement where a defendant had limited contact with prison employees, defense counsel, and five approved individuals, even where, unlike here, the defendant was not alleged to have made any illegal communications from prison because such restrictions serve the regulatory purpose of preventing the defendant from communicating with unconfirmed co-conspirators. El-Hagee 213, F.3D at 82. Here, the SAMs authorization memorandum provides ample evidence of the defendant's leadership of the cartel and is proven history of running as violent organization from prison, using co-conspirators to harm and silence potential witnesses and is engineering of two complex prison escapes. This more than demonstrates a clear rational relationship between the challenge restrictions and the legitimate government purpose of safeguarding the public and preventing acts that could lead to death or serious bodily injury. In short, the SAMs are reasonably necessary to address legitimate and serious concerns about the defendant's engaging in further criminal activity, including the potential use of violence. All right, we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna pick up with C. The other Turner factors support maintaining SAMs restrictions. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. - Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest. Life comes at you fast, which is why it's important to find some time to relax a little you time. Enter Chumba Casino. With no download required, you can jump on any time, anywhere for the chance to redeem some serious prizes. So treat yourself with Chumba Casino and play over 100 online casino style games all for free. Go to ChumbaCasino.com to collect your free welcome bonus. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group, void where prohibited by law, 18 plus terms and conditions apply.