Chapo's prosecutors wants add-on evidence: murder, Fentanyl trafficking, "parts"of Sean Penn interview and more

by Chivis Martinez for Borderland Beat      
                       

Prosecutors wants only the parts of the Penn video that can harm Chapo, but what may benefit Chapo precluded.  Meanwhile defense still requesting and waiting for cooperate witness information.  Despite what Mexican media states, defense has not been given names of witnesses to conduct investigations.  

A motion was filed with the court pertaining to the U.S. Government’s case against Joaquín Guzmán Loera, aka El Chapo.

Apparently, Government prosecutors are still not satisfied with their already ultra-strong case against, El Chapo, for they have filed a 106 page motion to add evidence.  The entire filing is below in a SCRIBD document.  I am pulling some of the elements that I found interesting.

At trial, the government expects to introduce cooperating witness testimony and other evidence proving that the defendant participated in and directed numerous acts of violence, including torture and kidnapping during the charged period.

This “evidence” the government is requesting admitted, 5 months before trial, appears to be reaped from cooperating witnesses and says as much below.

BLO Blames Chapo for the arrest of Mochomo

In 2008, Mexican authorities arrested a leader of the Beltran Leyva In 2008, Mexican authorities arrested a leader of the Beltran Leyva Organization, Alfredo Beltran Leyva, also known as “Mochomo.” The other leaders of that organization believed that the authorities arrested him at the defendant’s behest. This arrest triggered a series of events that fractured the longtime alliance between the defendant and Mayo Zambada on the one hand, and the Beltran Leyva Organization on the other. War broke out between the factions.

The defendant, along with Mayo Zambada, ordered hundreds of armed “sicarios” to actively search for any workers of the Beltran Leyva Organization in Culiacan, especially the top lieutenants. In retaliation, the Beltran Leyva Organization ordered their “sicarios” and “pistoleros” to target the defendant’s workers and lieutenants. Shootouts were frequent, violence was rampant, and finding dead bodies strewn across the city was a regular occurrence. The sicarios representing the defendant’s organization were well organized and well equipped. When they did not kill their rivals in shootouts, they abducted and interrogated them to garner intelligence about their rivals’ activities. The defendant ordered most of the captured rivals killed and their bodies disposed.

During the height of this war, from approximately 2008 through 2011, the defendant pursued some members of the Beltran Leyva Organization more than others; close to the top of his list was Israel Rincon Martinez, also known as “Wacho” and “Guacho” (“Rincon”). In approximately 2010, Rincon was a top lieutenant and enforcer for the Beltran Leyva Organization, and actively killed members of the Sinaloa Cartel.

The defendant and his Cartel made considerable efforts to locate Rincon, and their efforts intensified after Rincon attempted to kill one of the defendant’s sons, but instead mistakenly killed the son of one of the defendant’s allies. The defendant finally located Rincon and had him kidnapped. The defendant’s workers took Rincon to several different properties owned by the defendant and other cartel members, where they interrogated and tortured him. One of the defendant’s top lieutenants, and the defendant’s cousin, Juan Guzman Rocha, also known as “Juancho,” was present along with several other members of the defendant’s Cartel. At the defendant’s instructions, Juancho interrogated and tortured Rincon regarding one of the defendant’s rivals.

Zambada arrived and interrogated Rincon themselves. Ultimately, though, they killed Rincon before the defendant and Mayo Zambada arrived.

One of the members of the defendant’s Cartel made a video recording of Rincon’s interrogation, which ultimately was uploaded to YouTube. See Bates-number 000314218. This is not the only time that the defendant’s workers published a video of such conduct on the internet. As discussed further below, the government expects to introduce evidence at trial showing the defendant interrogating a bound member of a rival cartel in another YouTube video.

AFO Conflict

During the charged period, specifically, during the war with the Arellano Felix Organization in the early 1990s, the defendant and Guero Palma killed numerous workers for the that cartel with the blessing of then-godfather of Mexican drug trafficking, Juan Jose Esparragoza, also known as “El Azul.” Among the key battles in the bloody drug war was the infamous shootout in November 1992 at Christine’s discotheque in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. The defendant led an attack on members of the Arellano Felix Organization he learned would be at the club, which resulted in a gun battle that led to the deaths of six people.

CDG and Los Zetas

Following the defendant’s 2001 escape, during the war with the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas, the defendant instructed his “sicarios” (hitmen) or “pistoleros” (gunmen) to locate, kidnap, torture and interrogate any suspected member of the rival cartel. At the defendant’s explicit orders, his sicarios kidnapped rivals and brought them to him, often bound and helpless, and the defendant then personally interrogated the rivals. Indeed, in at least one instance, the defendant himself shot the rivals at point-blank range and ordered his lackeys to dispose of the bodies. Around 2006, the defendant’s workers brought two suspected Zetas members to the defendant. After having lunch, the defendant interrogated them, had them beaten and then shot them both in the head with a long gun. The defendant then ordered his workers to dig a hole in the ground, throw the bodies in the hole and light the bodies on fire before burying them.

Juarez Cartel conflict

The defendant’s war with the Carrillo Fuentes Organization started when the defendant ordered the murder of Vicente Carrillo Fuentes’s brother, Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentes, in September 2004. As noted above, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the defendant and Mayo Zambada sent drugs to the United States through Juarez with the cooperation of the Carrillo Fuentes Organization. The defendant’s workers in Juarez, however, started to have disputes with Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentes’s workers. After workers for Rodolfo killed several of the defendant’s workers and ordered any other of the defendant’s workers to seek permission before entering Juarez, the defendant felt disrespected. Notwithstanding the longstanding relationship that the defendant and Mayo Zambada had with Vicente Carrillo Fuentes and his cartel, the defendant ordered his sicarios to kill Rodolfo. This ignited a war. Since the defendant had already coveted the Juarez-El Paso crossing, he supplied his “pistoleros” in Juarez with a cache of weapons and ordered them to target members of the Carrillo Fuentes Organization for assassination. The defendant’s aggressive move for control of the Juarez plaza led to unprecedented violence and a staggering body count, making Juarez, for a time, the murder capital of the world.

Family Members

The defendant did not inflict violence solely upon rival cartel members. The defendant also ordered murders of Sinaloa Cartel members whom he suspected of cooperating with law enforcement. Even close family members did not escape this fate. For instance, the defendant ordered the murder of the aforementioned “Juancho,” because the defendant suspected him of cooperating with law enforcement officials. Indeed, the government expects to introduce evidence that the defendant and members of his Cartel attempted to kill or threatened to kill several of the cooperating witnesses who the government anticipates will testify at trial.

Background

By the early and mid-1980s, the defendant expanded his activities into the international arena as he transitioned from selling drugs within Mexico to transporting drugs across the Mexico/U.S. border, and eventually distributing drugs into the United States. The defendant pioneered the use of cross-border tunnels between Mexico and the United States to ensure the quick delivery of drugs, mainly cocaine and marijuana. The defendant actively sought to expand the quantities and types of drugs he was sending to the United States. Therefore, the defendant traveled to Colombia proactively to seek out sources of supply for both marijuana and cocaine. The defendant and his representatives met with various sources of supply, including the upper echelons of the Medellin Cartel—the most powerful Colombian drug cartel at the time—to reach an agreement to ship cocaine to the United States.

The defendant’s first forays into the cocaine trafficking business were relatively small, only a few cocaine-laden planes at a time landing on small airstrips in select locations in Mexico. The defendant used his drug-smuggling tunnel that crossed the border between Agua Prieta, Sonora and Douglas, Arizona to deliver the Colombian cocaine to the United States, and do so very quickly. The defendant earned the nickname “El Rapido” due to the speed with which he delivered the cocaine in the United States. It took the defendant as few as four or five days to transport large shipments of cocaine from Mexico to specific cities in the Southern United States, such as Phoenix and Los Angeles, which was an unprecedented speed for that era of narco-trafficking. As his reputation grew, so did the defendant’s client base and shipment capacity. Before long, the defendant arranged for the nightly receipt of as many as 15 to 20 planes loaded with 1,000 to 1,500 kilograms of cocaine each. These plane shipments to the defendant continued as the charged period began in 1989 and into the early 1990s, when the defendant switched to a maritime method of distribution.

The defendant’s drug trafficking activity in the early and mid-1980’s tells the story of how the defendant rose from a minor marijuana trafficker to a significant cocaine and marijuana trafficker with international connections. This evidence supplies a crucial piece of the history of the early days of the defendant’s drug trafficking empire. This evidence is “necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial,” because it explains how the defendant was able to traffic such massive quantities of cocaine from Colombia to the United States by 1989, the beginning of the charged period.

Indeed, the evidence regarding the defendant’s reputation for unprecedented speed in delivering and paying for drugs during that era of narco-trafficking—earning him the nickname “El Rapido”—provides essential detail and context for the defendant’s rapid rise to power in the world of drug trafficking in the late 1980s.  This early drug trafficking activity also “is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense”; during the charged period, the defendant relied on his long-standing relationships with Colombian cocaine suppliers—which he forged during this early period—to expand his drug trafficking enterprise. Id. The evidence of the defendant’s pre-1989 conduct is helpful and necessary to the jury’s understanding of the scope of his enterprise, and how he was able to re-establish himself as a high-level cocaine trafficker so quickly after escaping from prison in 2001.

Second, testimony about pre-indictment drug trafficking activity by the defendant and his co-conspirators, some of whom will testify about this period, is also background evidence of the CCE and the charged international narcotics trafficking conspiracy. Namely, the cooperating witnesses’ testimony about their drug trafficking activities with the defendant during the 1980’s provides evidence that gives necessary context to the manner in which they established a relationship of trust with the defendant.

Fentanyl Trafficking

During trial, the government expects to elicit testimony from one or more cooperating witnesses that the defendant and his coconspirators trafficked fentanyl in late 2014, just after the charged period, which he and his coconspirators referred to as “synthetic heroin.” Specifically, one or more cooperating witnesses will testify that the defendant and his coconspirators would import fentanyl precursors from China and manufacture fentanyl in the defendant’s lab in Sinaloa. The defendant and his coconspirators then sold fentanyl for shipment to the United States, for ultimate distribution in large cities, such as New York and Los Angeles. The government may also elicit testimony from a drug expert that fentanyl trafficking is an important aspect of the heroin trade in the United States. Specifically, the government expects that a drug expert will testify that fentanyl trafficking goes hand-in-hand with heroin trafficking, because heroin dealers often use fentanyl to “cut” or mix with heroin, which is more expensive. The expert will testify that narcotics traffickers commonly mix fentanyl with heroin to improve the potency of the heroin and to increase its effect on the user.

While the defendant is not charged with trafficking fentanyl, he is charged in Counts One through Four with trafficking multiple narcotics, including heroin. The defendant’s fentanyl trafficking is not “other crimes” evidence under Rule 404(b) because it “arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense”—namely, his sprawling drug trafficking enterprise—and is “Indeed, the testimony that the defendant’s coconspirators referred to the fentanyl as “synthetic heroin” is probative of the fact that their fentanyl trafficking was inextricably intertwined with their heroin trafficking activity charged in the Indictment.

Flight from Justice

Testimony from one or more cooperating witnesses at trial will show that, prior to the defendant’s 2001 escape, the defendant was concerned about possible extradition to face charges in the United States. Moreover, the government expects one or more cooperating witnesses to testify that, by 2012, the defendant was aware that the U.S. government was assisting in ongoing operations to apprehend him and sought his extradition to stand trial in the United States. Indeed, witness testimony and other evidence, including intercepted communications, will show that the defendant was concerned about ongoing investigations into him by U.S. authorities and worried that informants had infiltrated his organization. This evidence of the defendant’s knowledge of the U.S. charges against him is corroborated by the significant public rewards that the government offered for the defendant’s arrest beginning in 2004, as well as the five public indictments the government filed against the defendant from 2009 to 2012.18 Furthermore, the government expects one or more cooperating witnesses to testify that, during his two separate stints in prison from 2014 to 2017, the defendant actively expressed concern that he would be extradited to the United States.

Additionally, given that the defendant engaged in elaborate and sophisticated schemes to facilitate his flight from justice, the defendant’s behavior could not be described as “innocuous.”  Notably, during the 2001 Escape and the 2014 Escape, the defendant escaped from maximum-security prisons; during the 2012 Flight and 2016/2017 Planned Escape, the defendant bribed and attempted to bribe, respectively, government officials; and during the 2014 Flight, 2015 Escape and 2016 Arrest, the defendant relied on expertly engineered tunnels. The only explanation for the defendant’s conduct is his consciousness of guilt.

In requesting additional evidence be admissible, the government states:

 “[r]elevant evidence is not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.” Indeed, as the Supreme Court has recognized, in analyzing the admissibility of evidence, the trial court should make its determinations “with an appreciation of the offering party’s need for evidentiary richness and narrative integrity in presenting a case.” 

 “if it arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, if it is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.”

Meanwhile yesterday the defense filed a motion for the government to forward Brady and Gigolo material describe below:

 The law requires the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment.

And for “and for the early production of Jencks information and incorporated memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof”

Jencks material is evidence that is used in the course of a federal criminal prosecution in the United States. It usually consists of documents relied upon by government witnesses who testify at trial. The material is described as inculpatory, favoring the United States government's prosecution of a criminal defendant.

Preparing defense needs information about cooperators

Upon information and belief, the majority of cooperators who will testify against Mr. Guzmán at trial are foreign nationals arrested in or extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. These purported witnesses will testify about events that took place mainly in foreign locations. As such, any substantive investigation of these individuals must be conducted abroad and any relevant documents or evidence relating to these individuals is also located abroad. Conducting investigations will take time and Mr. Guzmán cannot and should not be forced to wait until the eve of trial, when the government is expected to disclose the information, to prepare his defense.

Disclosures of any and all promises given to cooperative witnesses in exchange for testimony

The government is required to produce Giglio material “in time for effective use at trial.” United States v. Perez, 940 F.Supp. at 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Such disclosures include, without limitations:

a. Any and all records and information revealing prior criminal convictions or guilty verdicts or juvenile adjudications, including but not limited to relevant “rap sheets,” of each witness the government intends to call at trial.

b.  Any and all consideration or promises of consideration given by any law enforcement officials, including prosecutors or agents, police, informers, or by any other government official, representative or agent, to or on behalf of any witness the government intends to call at trial, or to any member of the immediate family of any such witness. Such “consideration” refers to anything which arguably could be of value or use to a witness, including but not limited to formal or informal, direct or indirect, leniency, favorable treatment or recommendations or other assistance with respect to any pending or potential criminal, parole, probation, pardon, clemency, civil, administrative or other matter involving the state or federal government, any other authority, or other parties, including the conditions of confinement or incarceration; civil, criminal, or tax immunity grants; relief for forfeiture, payment of money, reward or fees, witness fees and special witness fees; provisions of food, clothing, transportation, legal services or other benefits; placement in a “witness protection” program, letters to anyone informing the recipient of the witness’ cooperation or informer registration; promises to take affirmative action to help the promisee not to jeopardize such status; aid or efforts in securing or maintaining the business or employment of a witness, or promises not to jeopardize such status; and anything else which arguably could reveal an interest, motive or bias on the part of the witness in favor of the prosecution or against the defendant or act as an inducement to testify or to color the testimony.

The list of requests regarding cooperative witnesses continues to the letter “T”, see below in defense Scribd document. 

 To read the entire government document see below, or use the link at top of document to link to scribd

   Chapo Case additional Evidence Requested Admitted by Government by Chivis Martinez on Scribd

   Chapo Case Defense Asked for Disclosure of cooperative witness information by Chivis Martinez on Scribd