Chivis Martinez Borderland Beat
Keegan Hamilton tweeted:
"Just got a sneak preview of the defense's
closing argument: A powerpoint presentation flashed on the screens in the
courtroom with this picture of El Mayo Zambada. Seems it will be all-in on the
"Chapo was a fall guy" theory."
Chivis: I have heard that today Jeffrey Lichtman will close for the defense
Below is information gleaned from court documents
regarding proposed jury instructions and verdict sheets. I had posted the sheets proposed by the government
but below are the revised sheets and instruction and objection by the defense
of some points which are noted
Proposed
from filing
As you have heard
throughout the trial, many of the acts alleged to have taken place occurred
outside the United States. Nevertheless, American law provides that the defendant
may be prosecuted here in the Eastern District of New York if you find, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the defendant was first brought into the United States in
connection with these charges within the Eastern District of New York. It does
not matter if the defendant was brought to the United States involuntarily or
in the custody of law enforcement officers. The Eastern District of New York
encompasses the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, as well as
Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.
Preponderance
of the evidence
To prove something by a
preponderance of the evidence means to prove that it is more likely true than
not true. It is determined by considering all of the evidence and deciding
which evidence is more convincing. If the evidence appears to be equally
balanced, or if you cannot say upon which side it weighs heavier, you must
resolve this question against the government.
Proof by preponderance
of the evidence is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This
is the only time in this case that you may use the preponderance of the
evidence standard to find that a legal element has been established.
Introduction
At all times relevant
to this Superseding Indictment, unless otherwise indicated:
1. Since the late
1980s, the Mexican Federation (the “Federation”) existed as an organized crime
syndicate founded upon longstanding relationships between Mexico’s major drug
trafficking kingpins. The Federation functioned as a council with
representatives from the respective drug trafficking organizations of its
principal leaders, including the defendant JOAQUIN ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERA,
also known as “El Chapo.
Two
Leaders
In the early 2000s,
JOAQUIN ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERA and ISMAEL ZAMBADA GARCIA formed a partnership
that led to the transformation of the Federation into the Sinaloa Cartel, which
became the largest drug trafficking organization in the world. The Sinaloa
Cartel had a structure that included thousands of members, including: (a) the
leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, who were the ultimate decision makers in the organization
with respect to its drug trafficking and money laundering activities, as well
as its corruption and enforcement activities undertaken to preserve and protect
its illegal activities;
(b) security personnel,
who protected the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel and engaged in
violent acts to further the goals of the
organization; (c) plaza bosses, who controlled certain territories for the
Sinaloa Cartel and were responsible for transporting drugs through those territories;
(d) transporters, such as boat and submarine crews, pilots and truck drivers,
who transported drugs from Colombia through Mexico and into the United States;
and (e) money launderers, who funneled drug proceeds from the United States
back to Mexico. While at times there have been rifts and infighting among the
leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, they generally coordinated their criminal
activities, shared and controlled Mexico’s trafficking routes, resolved
conflicts over territory, minimized inter-organization violence and ensured the
Sinaloa Cartel received official or non-official protection.
Acts
of violence
The defendants JOAQUIN
ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERA and
ISMAEL ZAMBADA GARCIA
and other leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel also employed “sicarios,” or hitmen,
who carried out hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, assaults,
kidnappings, assassinations and acts of torture at the direction of the
defendants.
The
defendants directed and ordered these acts of violence for a variety of
reasons, including but not limited to:
(a) Promoting and
enhancing the prestige, reputation and position of the Sinaloa Cartel with
respect to rival criminal organizations;
(b) Preserving and
protecting the power, territory and criminal ventures of the Sinaloa Cartel,
including but not limited to the Sinaloa Cartel’s control over drug trafficking
routes over the U.S.-Mexico border;
(c) Enforcing
discipline amongst its members and associates by punishing disloyalty and
failure; and
(d) Protecting members
of the Sinaloa Cartel from arrest and prosecution by silencing potential
witnesses and retaliating against anyone who provided information or assistance
to law enforcement authorities.
COUNTS
COUNT
ONE
(Continuing Criminal Enterprise)
Violations One Through Eleven
(International
Cocaine Distribution with the Norte del Valle Cartel)
Villa Cifuentes Org and Sinaloa Cartel
Other suppliers
Violations Twenty Through
Twenty-Three
(Cocaine and Heroin Distribution)
COUNT TWO
(International Cocaine, Heroin,
Methamphetamine and
Marijuana Manufacture and
Distribution Conspiracy)
COUNT THREE
(Cocaine Importation Conspiracy)
COUNT FOUR
(Cocaine Distribution Conspiracy)
COUNT FIVE
(International Distribution of
Cocaine –
Approximately 450 Kilograms of
Cocaine)
COUNT SIX
(International Distribution of
Cocaine –
Approximately 12,000 Kilograms of
Cocaine)
COUNT SEVEN
(International Distribution of
Cocaine –
Approximately 10,500 Kilograms of
Cocaine)
COUNT EIGHT
(International Distribution of
Cocaine –
Approximately 8,000 Kilograms of
Cocaine)
COUNT NINE
(Use of Firearms)
COUNT TEN
(Conspiracy to Launder Narcotics
Proceeds)
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
AS TO COUNT ONE
(Continuing Criminal Enterprise)
If any of the above-described
forfeitable property, as a result of any act
or omission of the defendants:
(a) cannot be located upon the
exercise of due diligence;
(b) has been transferred or sold to,
or deposited with, a third party;
(c) has been placed beyond the
jurisdiction of the court;
(d) has been substantially diminished
in value; or
(e) has been commingled with other
property which cannot be
divided without difficulty;
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
AS TO COUNTS TWO THROUGH EIGHT
(Cocaine, Heroin, Methamphetamine
and/or Marijuana Trafficking)
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION AS TO COUNT NINE
(Use of Firearms in Furtherance of
Drug Trafficking)
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
AS TO COUNT TEN
(Money Laundering)
Defense objections to proposed instructions-
Mr. Guzmán further submits the
following comments or additions:
a. Request No. 7 – Mr.
Guzmán requests that the first full paragraph on page 16 read
as follows:
You may, of course, find that the
existence of an agreement between two or
more persons to disobey or violate
the law has been established by direct proof.
b. Request No. 8 – Mr.
Guzmán requests that the fourth paragraph on page 19 read
as follows:
Thus, if you unanimously find beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant
was a member of a criminal conspiracy
charged, then ….
c. Request No. 9 – Mr.
Guzmán requests that the last paragraph on page 22 read as
follows:
Your decision as to whether the
defendant conspired to commit a particular
unlawful act must be unanimous. If
you determine that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt ….
d. Request No. 10 – Mr.
Guzmán requests that the first paragraph on page 25 read as
follows:
The government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant
conspired to import cocaine into the
United States. Your decision as to whether
the defendant conspired import
cocaine into the United States must be
unanimous.
e. Request No. 11 – Mr.
Guzmán requests that the last paragraph on page 27 read as
follows:
If you unanimously determine that the
defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt ….
f. Request No. 12 - Mr.
Guzmán requests that the last paragraph on page 29 read as
follows:
If you unanimously determine that the
defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt of any of the crimes charged in
Counts Five through Nine….
g. Request No. 13 - Mr.
Guzmán requests that fourth and fifth paragraphs on page
31 be combined to read as follows:
With respect to violation twenty-nine, murder
conspiracy, the violation charges
that the defendant, while engaged in one or more of
the narcotics conspiracies as
alleged in Counts Two through Four, did knowingly
and intentionally conspire to
kill or cause the intentional killing of one or more
persons, (to wit: persons who
posed a threat to the Sinaloa Cartel) and such
killing did result.
In order to prove this violation against the
defendant, the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read in full letter from defense below
A
part of the letter—Murder---
Second, that the defendant agreed with one or more
persons to kill individuals or
groups of persons, who posed a threat to the Sinaloa
cartel, specifically [NOTE:
the government will provide the list of individuals
and groups of persons at the
end of trial] and such killing results. The
government need not prove that the
individual or group of persons whom the
defendant agreed to kill was in fact
killed, only that there was an unlawful
agreement to do so. [strike-through indicates
the defense
wants this removed]
The third element the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is
that such killing occurred because of, and as part of,
defendant’s engaging in
the continuing criminal enterprise (or the offense of
e.g., a conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances).
To prove this element, the government must establish
that the defendant’s
agreement with one or more other people to counsel,
command, induce,
procure, or cause the killing of the victim(s) was
related in some meaningful
way to the activity charged in either Counts Two,
Three or Four.
You may find that the conspiracy to murder was related
to the drug
conspiracy in Counts Two, Three or Four if you find
that there was a
connection between the defendant’s role in the
conspiracy to murder and his
or her participation in the activity charged in Counts
Two, Three or Four.
For example, a defendant engaging in drug distribution
who conspires to kill
his or her spouse in a purely non-drug-related
domestic dispute would not
satisfy this element. The government must prove that
at least one of the
defendant’s purposes or motives in conspiring to kill
the victim(s) was
related to the drug distribution activities charged in
Counts Two, Three or
Four. It not necessary for the government to prove
that this was the sole
purpose, or even the primary purpose, for the
conspiracy. What the
government must prove is that there was some
substantive connection
between the defendant’s role in the drug distribution
activity and his role in
the conspiracy to murder, even if there were other
motives or purposes for
the conspiracy to murder.
DEFENSE
GOVERNMENT