Wednesday, January 24, 2018

U.S. Prosecutors want anonymous, sequestered jury, in El Chapo Case

Chivis Martinez for Borderland Beat
Anonymous or innominate jury is atypical but is sometimes requested in high profile cases. If a court grants the request, it will order jury members kept anonymous. Either the defense or prosecution can request an anonymous jury, for such reasons as to protect jury members from jury tampering, the media or a serious threat of juror’s safety.  Or to protect the jury process itself.
There can be concerns for jurors after an unfavorable verdict.   As in the O.J. Simpson trial.  Or that of a young Florida mother, Casey Anthony, accused of murdering her toddler daughter. The backlash was severe over the not guilty verdict; one juror left Florida because of it.


Jury sequestration is rare. A judge may order a jury sequestered to prevent interference by publicity, media reporting or even social media compromising objectivity. Or tampering.


In the case of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, the prosecution has requested both, an anonymous, sequestered jury. 

The Prosecution 



The following arguments are made by prosecutors:

  • The Seriousness of the Charges Against the Defendant Weigh in Favor of an Anonymous and Partially Sequestered Jury
  • The Defendant’s Past Interference With and Present Means to Interfere with the Judicial Process Support Anonymity and Partial Sequestration
  • Extensive Press Coverage Justifies an Anonymous and Partially Sequestered Jury.


From the statement of the government in support  of anonymous, sequestered jury;

“The government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion for a jury that is anonymous (i.e. the names, addresses, and specific places of employment of the venire and the jury will not be revealed to the parties and the press) and partially sequestered (i.e. the jury will be transported to and from the courthouse by the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) each trial day and will be sequestered from the public while in the courthouse during each trial day). These limited measures are necessary to protect the integrity of the trial and the jury’s impartiality by preventing harassment, intimidation, or other interference with the jurors — and, just as importantly, by mitigating any fear in the minds of the jurors of any such harassment, intimidation, or other interference. As the Court is aware from previous filings, this case involves exceptionally serious charges; the defendant has a history of interference with the judicial process (e.g. two dramatic prison escapes; history of employing “sicarios,” or hitmen, against potential witnesses); the defendant has the means to interfere with the judicial process; and this case has drawn intense media scrutiny.”
 The Defense

 "In the defense opposition motion sent Tuesday, defense attorney Eduardo Balarezo argued that presenting Guzmán as a dangerous subject, such as having the jury being anonymous and sequestered, and the heavily armed escort, sets in motion a possible presumption from jurors that would affect his presumption of innocence.




Balarezo's proposed that Judge Brian Cogan select a jury that would remain anonymous to both Guzmán and his defense and the jury be only inaccessible to Guzmán and the media, and he would be in agreement to Judge Cogan issuing an order prohibiting contact with them.

Balarezo argues:


The government claims that Mr. Guzmán’s “history of interference with the judicial process,” “means to harm the jury,” and the “widespread media coverage” surrounding this case are reasons for this Court to grant its Motion. Such an order would unduly burden Mr. Guzmán’s presumption of innocence, impair his ability to conduct meaningful voir dire and create the extremely unfair impression that he is a dangerous person from whom the jury must be protected."

Balarezo continues
The facts and circumstances of this case do not present “strong reason to believe the jury needs protection” and, therefore, the motion must be denied.
"From the outset, the government has been determined to gain advantage by sensationalizing this case. The centerpiece of this case is a more than 25-year long “continuing criminal enterprise” and a narcotics conspiracy as charged in the fourth superseding indictment filed in 2016. The government argues that Mr. Guzmán is the “principal leader of the Mexico based international drug trafficking organization known as the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the world’s largest and most prolific drug trafficking organizations.” Gov. Mot. at 2. Notwithstanding the thousands of pieces of discovery produced by the government, the principal source of “evidence” against Mr. Guzmán will be numerous cooperating witnesses who will testify at trial in exchange for reduced prison sentences. The government relies on those same witness to justify the empanelment of an anonymous and partially sequestered jury.
Empaneling an anonymous jury in this case would unfairly burden Mr. Guzmán’s presumption of innocence and should be rejected in favor of less extreme measures to protect the privacy of jurors. An anonymous jury – especially one that would be permitted to function only under armed guard – would poison the atmosphere of the case and serve to bolster the government’s proof by creating the impression that Mr. Guzmán is guilty and dangerous. In a case in which the government alleges that Mr. Guzmán committed acts of violence, juror anonymity sends the message to each juror that he or she needs to be protected from Mr. Guzmán. From there, members of the jury could infer that Mr. Guzmán is both dangerous and guilty. Granting the government’s Motion would deny Mr. Guzmán the fair trial guaranteed by the United States Constitution."
A. An anonymous jury may not be empaneled in the absence of “strong reason to believe the jury needs protection,” because empaneling an anonymous jury burdens the presumption of innocence and impairs Mr. Guzmán’s ability to conduct meaningful voir dire.
"It cannot be the case that simply saying that Mr. Guzmán is charged with a “pattern of violent activity” warrants empanelment of an anonymous jury. If every federal trial in which the government alleged gang and/or narcotics related murders warranted an anonymous jury, such proceedings would become the rule rather than the exception. Instead, as the cases require, the “something more” which must be proven, must always involve proof of a credible threat that Mr. Guzmán is likely to attempt to interfere with the jury itself."

Guzmán has been barred from meeting with the press, having visitors with the exception of three visits from his young twin daughters,  no phone calls with the exception of two monitored fifteen minutes phone calls per month from his mother and sister.  He has been barred from private meetings with his attorney. 

His trial is now scheduled sometime in September.



32 comments:

  1. The USA wanted to host 'the trial of the century' then they need to ensure he gets a fair trial and ensure everyone's safety. We all know he's guilty and deserves at least 25-life but he's not guilty of everything he'll be accused of. They'll lead any jury to believe him band his sons are responsible for all drug trade in america and he's not. Nothings changed since he was arrested and from the outside it appears to be getting worse.

    Personally I suspect it will be held in a closed court but I think most people would like to hear what he's got to say. I hope he names names of all government officials (across the world) who've taken bribes. Its time they were all rounded up too. They'll always be criminals but anyone who vows to serve the public and becomes corrupt is, in my opinion worse than the criminals they've helped flourish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there a way we Chapos lawyers can be turned into a corporation of sorts so we can buy stock from them? I, mean if these guys manage to pull a miracle and get Chapo a sentence of even 25 years or less their value is going to go sky high and I, want a piece of this hahaha.

      Delete
    2. Lol you’re dumb, Chapos son still in the game, they aren’t gonna snitch out their associates

      Delete
    3. 12.42pm neither comments suggested he was. He hasn't single handedly taken down the USA or mexico though as most of USA media tries to state. No matter what he's accused, or how little/as much information as he gives, he should get a fair trial.

      Delete
    4. We r not Mexico. He is charged with crimes. But not proven guilty yet.mexico u r jail and guilty, and must prove ur u r not guilty

      Delete
    5. @4:05 There's a saying in jails across the U.S. when your first taken in its called guilty until proven innocent not the other way around

      Delete
  2. Again more reason to say yes if youre chapos lawyer and go to supreme court for violating his rights to a fair jury. Never seen anyone get their rights violated like here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:02pm obviously you have never seen the US judicial system in action.

      Delete
    2. I guess you are not familiar with Manuel Noriega, Carlos Lehder, Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros, and "White boy" Rick Wershe Jr. (too name a few who were railroaded by the Feds). White Boy Rick's case is the most egregious.

      Delete
    3. Well, the Holy Inquisition rides again, they never went away, they just wore their KKK robes at home for a few years.
      The Torquemadas are hungry and are too many with even more too many mouths to feed.

      Delete
  3. He’s the one who was holding interviews to brag about how powerful he is. He’s the one who bragged about the quantities being shipped he’s the one who made himself look guilty long before he was arrested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didnt brag about anything. Sean Penn said he did, thats not very credible. It doesnt sound like something Chapo would say, he is very shy and modest.

      Delete
    2. WRONG! There is not one thing where he bragged about how much he shipped that’s giving yourself away.

      Delete
  4. His trial was originally set for April. Mexican presidential elections are in June. Presto! Trial in September.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Most cases with this high of a profile always have the jury sequestered. Imagine all of the media trying to interview them day in and day out. Also this will prevent jurors being tossed with all of the coverage. If it was me, I wouldn’t want to be selected as a juror if I wasn’t anonymous. Would you feel safe?
    Mica

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree. This isn’t an issue of his rights but the safety of the jury. It’s amazing that a man who had such a total disregard for other people’s lives, now whines (through his lawyers) about his rights.

      Delete
  6. I know we're in the U.S and everyone is entitled to a fair trial but let's all be honest with ourselves. The guy is guilty. Plain and simple...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know have you ever bought drugs from him. Or do you know him from the news

      Delete
    2. He is as guilty as the person that bought his product here in the usa ... is just supply and demand

      Delete
    3. So is DEA and who is judging them? Who is taking them to court? This is bullshit while he helped them make millions of dollars now they act like they are clean. C’MON NOW!!!!!

      Delete
    4. 6:36 the DEA is prosecuting him, the CIA has been always the master puppeteer of the CDS and all their different families in cahoots with the mexican federal governments.

      Delete
  7. 2:44 Yea Mica it could be very dangerous . Then again very profitable for some . The promise of silver or lead can be very influential . Lets face it . They have plenty of power everywhere and you can bet for sure they are working on something and probably several things, any option they can think of . The easy way for the usa is to just poison him in his cell . That would be the quick simple solution . The best for the usa and world is to process him through the courts and let him rot in a little cell for the rest of his life . Is it do-able though ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. 5:50 PM
    Guilty of what? Supplying junkies with their "medicine"? It is simple economics. Supply and demand.

    Take steps to decrease demand, the supply will follow.

    Leave the status quo. Suppliers will supply. The "authorities" will collect their cut and will take a large chunk when the "bad guys" are "brought to justice."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fkn chapo you could have been still out or shot it out like Pablo but instead your vanity destroyed u. All for Kate a piruja at best who was handling se an penns chora either way. You got played player

    ReplyDelete
  10. guilty of what just because of people saying.Were you there,,maybe not guilty

    ReplyDelete
  11. The only thing Chapo is guilty of is farming beans and corn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bro I say that all the time

      Delete
  12. I would straight play batshit crazy to keep from being on that jury!i would go ape and shit myself and all! Anything to get out of it!😄

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let him go so we can all get back to work “ dust settling takes a while

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated, refer to policy for more information.
Envía fotos, vídeos, notas, enlaces o información
Todo 100% Anónimo;

borderlandbeat@gmail.com