Beyond The Horizon
The El Chapo Files: El Chapo And The Venue Change Request Before His Trial (6/26/24)
During his trial, Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the notorious leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, requested a venue change. His legal team argued that the intense media coverage and public interest in New York City would prevent a fair trial. They contended that potential jurors would likely be biased due to the extensive and negative publicity surrounding Guzmán's case.
The defense pointed out that the trial's location in Brooklyn, close to the media hub of New York City, increased the likelihood of prejudice among jurors. They also expressed concerns about security and the logistical challenges of conducting a high-profile trial in such a densely populated area.
Despite these arguments, the judge denied the request for a venue change. The court determined that sufficient measures could be taken to ensure an impartial jury and a fair trial. These measures included rigorous jury selection procedures and instructions to jurors to avoid media coverage of the case.
In this episode, we take a look at that argument as we dive deep into the El Chapo files.
(commercial at 12:00)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
- Duration:
- 17m
- Broadcast on:
- 26 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to take a look at El Chapo's motion for a change of venue. Case number 0-9-0466-BMC. The United States of America versus Joaquin Guzman-Larea, defendant's motion for change of venue. Defendant Joaquin Guzman buying through undersigned council and pursuant to the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution and federal rule of criminal procedure 21, respectfully request that this honorable court grant this motion for change of venue to the southern district of New York or to the eastern district of Pennsylvania. The parties have conferred on a briefing schedule regarding this motion. The government agrees to respond by May 15th, 2018 and the defense will reply by May 22nd, 2018. Bax. On May 11th, 2016, the government filed a 4th superseding indictment charging Mr. Guzman with 17 narcotics trafficking and related counts. Upon his extradition from Mexico on January 19th, 2017 and his arrival in the United States, the government transported Mr. Guzman to the Metropolitan Correctional Center, MCC, in Manhattan within the southern district of New York, where he has been housed ever since under special administrative measures. Apparently the government determined that MCC was the only facility that could securely house Mr. Guzman. The government transported Mr. Guzman to the MCC in a multi-vehicle motorcade that included several marked police cars, blacks of urban SUVs and ambulance and an emergency response vehicle. The MCC was flanked by countless law enforcement officers wearing tactical vests displaying the insignias of the Drug Enforcement Agency, Homeland Security and Marshall Service and New York State Police and others. Many of the law enforcement officers were outfitted in military-style gear and carried sidearms as well as assault-style weapons. The media extensively covered Mr. Guzman's arrival at the MCC. The government alleges that Mr. Guzman engaged in a drug distribution conspiracy affecting numerous districts around the country. As a government press release dates, the case against Mr. Guzman bears no particularized relationship to the Eastern District of New York. In fact, there is indictments pending against Mr. Guzman in the Southern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of Texas, the District of New Hampshire, the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. The Mexican government granted Mr. Guzman's extradition only to the Southern District of California and the Western District of Texas. As the court is aware, however, after the government of Mexico apparently waived the rule of speciality, the United States government chose to bring him to the Eastern District of New York to face the indictment filed in this court. Thus, given the government's self-authorized virtually limitless choice of venue, it was in a position to select any jurisdiction where Mr. Guzman was charged and where it could house him in a facility with the security capabilities the government believed necessary. Instead, it chose to try him in the EDNY and then claim the need to house him at the MCC located within the SDNY. Because of that choice made by the government, each time Mr. Guzman transported to the EDNY courthouse from the MCC, the government assembled scores the United States Marshals and other law enforcement officers and escorts Mr. Guzman in multi-vehicle motorcades of marked and unmarked police cars, armored cars, and other emergency response vehicles. The government then proceeds to order the closing of the Brooklyn Bridge while the motorcade crosses from the MCC in Manhattan to the EDNY courthouse in Brooklyn. The process is repeated when Mr. Guzman is taken back to the MCC. Mr. Guzman has now made seven court appearances, each directly exposing countless of New Yorkers and potential jurors to this spectacle and inconveniencing thousands more by the traffic disruptions created. The argument, a criminal defendant is guaranteed a fair trial by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. Constitution amendments, Five and Six, embodied in these guarantees is the principle that one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial and not on the grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial, Taylor versus Kentucky 436 U.S. 478 485 1978. On several occasions, the Supreme Court has addressed whether security measures taking to control a criminal defendant, which are visible to a jury, can erode a defendant's presumption of innocence. For example, in deck versus Missouri, the court noted that shackling a defendant during the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial inevitably implies to a jury as a matter of common sense that court authorities consider the offender a danger to the community. Deck versus Missouri 544 U.S. 622 2005. As a result, the court has explained that such measures should be subjected to close judicial scrutiny and should be upheld only where there exists an essential state policy requiring the particular practice. Estelle vs Williams 425 U.S. 501 503-504 1976. In this case, the unprecedented, highly visible, and disruptive security measures taken by the government every time it transports Mr. Guzman are likely to be seen or heard by innumerable potential-inceded jurors and run the precise risk the Supreme Court warned against that Mr. Guzman, while presumed innocent, is already considered by authorities to be in extreme danger to the community. Moreover, there is no essential state policy requiring the government to try Mr. Guzman in a jurisdiction requiring transportation by armored motorcade and closing of a major city thoroughfare in order for him to attend trial. The government could easily try Mr. Guzman in the SDNY, which is immediately adjacent to and connected to the MCC. The proximity between the MCC and SDNY courthouses would allow for the secure transfer of Mr. Guzman to and from court without the current prejudicial spectacle of multi-vehicle armed convoy and the closing of the Brooklyn Bridge. Similarly, the case can be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the Federal Detention Center there previously created a unit capable of housing inmates held under SAMS and where Mr. Guzman could be transported to the courthouse via a tunnel connecting it to the detention facility. Thus, a remedy for the highly prejudicial security measures associated with transporting Mr. Guzman could be achieved by transferring venue to the SDNY or to the EDPA. The inconvenience to the court and the government caused by transferring venue to the SDNY is minimal given the close proximity of the SDNY and EDNY courthouses. The Constitution provides for the protection of the criminal defendant and that criminal trials shall be held in the state where the crimes have been committed. US Constitution Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3, Amendment 6. These provisions are in place not to provide the government with any right or discretion to choose a venue where it feels it is most likely to succeed at trial, but to protect criminal defendants from being hailed to trial in remote locations removed from the locations of the charged defenses. See US v. Chorus 356, US 405, 407, 1958. The provision for trial in the vicinity of the crime is a safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place. As a result, under the Federal Rules, venue may only be changed upon the defendant's motion as it is right to wave. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21A provides that court is required to transfer venue if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there. Federal Rules of Criminal Prosecution 21A. Motions under that section are generally raised in the event of a saturation of negative publicity in a particular district. In this case, however, media attention to the case in general is pervasive in all districts, thus this motion does not challenge venue on those grounds. This motion challenges venue on the distinct ground that the venue itself is creating unnecessary localized prejudice by requiring the spectacle of Mr. Guzman's transportation, as discussed above, the extent of this security display portends irrevocable and unavoidable prejudice. As a result, Mr. Guzman respectfully requests that this court consider the same principles underlining a more traditional media base claim under Rule 21 when considering Mr. Guzman's request. For example, in the United States for a small Donato Rivera, the court stated the factors this court should consider when evaluating a motion for change of venue include under Rule 21A. The extent to which the government is responsible for generating the publicity, the extent to which the publicity focuses on the crime, rather than on the individual, defendants charged with it, and other factors reflecting on the likely effect of the publicity, on the ability of potential jurors in the district to hear the evidence impartially. 922F.2D934/967 Second Circuit, 1990. In this case, the government is completely responsible for generating the publicity at issue. The government unilaterally chose the district, where it preferred to try Mr. Guzman and it unilaterally chose to house him under restrictions it could not accommodate in that district. Second, the security display is entirely focused on the identity of the defendant. It's not akin to dispassionate news coverage of a proceeding. It is akin to driving a sign illuminated by sirens and flanked by police vehicles marked with government insignia that says dangerous man inside. Finally, the number of potential jurors that have been and will continue to be exposed to this spectacle is unquantifiable. Mr. Guzman contends that under these circumstances, Rule 21A requires a change of venue to a jurisdiction where Mr. Guzman can be housed in accordance to the government's demands and transported to trial in a manner that preserves his constitutional rights to a fair trial. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21B gives this court discretion to grant the defendant's motion for change of venue for the convenience of the parties, any victim, and the witnesses and in the interest of justice. Fedar Krim, Procedures 21B. These factors weigh in favor of granting a change of venue. Surely the convenience of the defendant would be better served by being tried in proximity to where he is housed. It would seem also that avoiding the unnecessary diversion of law enforcement resources to this transportation detail would be more convenient for the government. And the interests of justice plainly weigh against transporting the defendant in this public bridge-closing riot gear-wearing, phalanx of cars and officers, a process which will grow only more frequent and visible as the trial approaches. The undersigned are aware of no criminal defendant that has been regularly transferred to court with this level of theatrics and disruption. In resolving a motion under 21B, this court is to consider a non-exhaustive list of factors including one, the location of the defendant, two, the location of possible witnesses, three, the location of events likely to be at issue, four, the location of relevant documents, five, the expenses to be incurred by the parties, if transfer is denied, six, the disruption of the defendant's business if transfer is denied, seven, the location of counsel, eight, the relative accessibility of the place of trial, nine, docket conditions, in each district and ten, any other special circumstances that might bear on the desirability of transfer. No one of these factors is dispositive and a balance should be struck in determining which are of the greatest importance in the case before the court. Maldonado Rivera, 922F.2D at 966. Here the first factor, the location of the defendant weighs heavily in favor of changing venue. Mr. Guzman is currently held in a location remote from the courthouse in which he is to be tried, requiring the employment of dramatically prejudicial motorcade to transport him to and from court. This factor favors transferring him to a location where this is not necessary. The second, third and fourth factors concerning the location of witnesses, events and documents are not implicated here because by the government's own admissions, they are national and international in scope. Most if not all events occurred in foreign locations, witnesses will be traveling from other places and documents are already in the government's possession. A transfer of venue of a few or 100 miles would not be contradicted on these grounds. The fifth and sixth factors do not apply. Regarding the seventh factor, counsel for the government has already, from New York or Miami, thus a transfer to Manhattan would post little inconvenience. A transfer to Philadelphia could create modest inconvenience for government counsel from New York but is balanced with slightly less inconvenience for government counsel from Florida. The underside would not be inconvenienced by either move. Both Manhattan and Philadelphia are easily accessible, thus the suggested locations themselves do not factor against transfer. If the court traveled with the case to Manhattan, the issue of docket control would be unaffected. It's not clear how moving the case to Philadelphia would affect this factor. The government will surely claim that Vodir can eliminate jurors who have been exposed to this spectacle or who cannot guarantee that they can be fair despite having been exposed to it. The government's argument must fail for two reasons. First, given the extent of the disruption caused by this extraordinary security detail involved in transferring Mr. Guzman to and from court, it will be impossible to guarantee that a seated juror will not be exposed to it, putting the fairness of the trial in jeopardy while it is already underway and putting untold taxpayer dollars at risk when a missed trial must be granted as a result of the juror's exposure to this scene on the Brooklyn Bridge. Second, attempting to redress his problems solely through Vodir risks disproportionately eliminating jurors from areas closer to the city who will be more likely to be exposed to the motorcade. For example, according to the most recent census data, the population of King's County, the most likely to witness the security display, is 35% African American. On the other hand, Suffolk County, the least likely to be exposed to it, is 8.5% black. Thus, failing to transfer venue will risk disproportionately eliminating African American jurors in violation of the defendant's fifth and 14th Amendment rights. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the government has very little legal basis on which to oppose this motion. The choice of venue is not a right or privilege that is afforded to the government. Fair trial guarantees include a venue provision to protect the defendant. The government is certainly able and obliged to bring a case in the jurisdiction where the crime is charged. In this case, however, the government has alleged that the crime touches essentially all jurisdictions in this country, and has specifically alleged that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York by returning an indictment there. The government has no right to insist that a case remaining in a district where the defendant will be subject to prejudicial security measures of the government's creation for no other reason than it believes it enjoys litigation advantage in that venue. This court should conclude that the government's unexplained desire to try Mr. Guzman in the Eastern District of New York as opposed to one of the other numerous jurisdictions in which he could have been held to trial is not an essential state policy justifying the exposure of potential and likely ceded jurors to the prejudicial security measures associated with transporting Mr. Guzman from the jurisdiction where the government chooses to house him. As such, this court should transfer venue to the Southern District of New York or to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as mandated or permitted by federal rule of criminal procedure 21. Failure to do so will result in a deprivation of Mr. Guzman's 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment rights. Wherefore, Mr. Guzman respectfully requests that this court transfer venue to the Southern District of New York or to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. So, we're going to continue making our way through these court documents because they're fascinating. To see the way they went after El Chapo and to see how they took him down really gives you a glimpse in how the government goes about going after people like El Chapo. So, that's going to do it for this one. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.