El Chapo legal update and Jefferey Lichtman, Gotti's son's attorney, says he will join the Chapo team

Chivis Martinez Borderland Beat

update: On Monday Lichtman was in court where he entered a formal notice to appear as Chapo’s attorney in Brooklyn court

The attorney that represented John Gotto Jr., in a 2009 securities fraud case, Jeffrey Lichtman says he will officially be joining the El Chapo defense team on Monday.

Lichtman dropped out a year ago, after it seemed there was a dream team compiled to represent Chapo. The issues were guarantee of payment.

Eduardo Balarezo was carrying the load until a few months ago when William Purpura joined the defense, and now Lichtman may round out the team. Reportedly Lichtman said to the NY Post,  “We had to make sure it was done correctly”, in reference about payment.

Funds for any defense payment must be “clean money” and the government has made it clear it will be focused on the origins of any money used for payment.

Lichtman says, “The jury and the public will be stunned when they see the types of cooperators being used in this case,” he said. “I’ve been on many cases where all sorts of questionable characters have been used, but this dwarfs them all. There are so many mercenary, dishonest people being tapped in an attempt to bring down Mr. Guzman.”

With respect to conditions Guzman has been subjected to, “The conditions are obscene, I’ve represented infamous people over the years,” Lichtman told The Post. “He’s being held in the most harsh conditions I’ve seen in 27 years of practice.”

Lichtman represented Margarito Flores, twin of Pedro Flores, who operated the Sinaloa Cartel trafficking hub in Chicago. This will be an issue, since the twins are expected to be on the witness list.

Venue will not change rules judge Cogan

Motions for Change of Venue [226] and [253] are denied.

Supposedly, there is a “plan” that will be in place to circumvent the nightmare traffic scenario that would exist if El Chapo was to be transferred during peak hours, which includes the closing of the Brooklyn Bridge.  Balarezo had suggested moving the case to the Manhattan courthouse.  The pragmatic proposal made sense since Chapo is held in Manhattan.

No hint as to what exactly the plan is but one guess would be that Chapo remain at the courthouse, housed at a cell there during the week and return to Manhattan on weekends.   Another possibility is transfer by helicopter.

Judge says government  needs to show why the court shouldn't strike 85, which charges Guzman with conspiracy murder.

Says Judge Cogan

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE dated 8/15/18 that the parties are ordered to show cause why: (1) Violation 85 should not be stricken as a substantive count; (2) Jones and Apprendi require the Government to prove the elements of § 848(e) to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the evidence that the Government seeks to admit is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).5 

The parties need not re-brief the arguments in support and in opposition to defendant's recent motion to exclude evidence pertaining to Violation 85; the Court will consider those arguments in addition to the supplemental briefing in reaching a final decision on the admissibility of the proffered evidence. The parties should file their briefs on the order to show cause by August 25, 2018. Any responses are due by August 30, 2018 as to Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 8/15/2018 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)

Judge:  [see full ruling in document at bottom]

“Defendant has filed a motion to preclude evidence pertaining to Violation 85 of the indictment, or, in the alternative, to compel disclosure of evidence relating to Violation 85 and to continue his trial. As part of that motion, defendant argues that the Court should strike Violation 85, which charges him with conspiracy to commit murder in the course of violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 846(b)(1)(A) and 960(b)(1).

In evaluating the parties’ arguments on defendant’s motion to preclude, the Court has reexamined its June 7, 2018 order ruling on the parties’ motions in limine, particularly the Court’s conclusion that 21 U.S.C. § 848(e) states a substantive offense.

This Court’s decision on that point relied primarily on decisions from Courts of Appeals outside of the Second Circuit,1 which focused on the fact that other subsections of § 848 states a substantive offense.

This Court’s decision on that point relied primarily on decisions from Courts of Appeals outside of the Second Circuit,1 which focused on the fact that other subsections of § 848 refer to subsection (e) as an offense.

The Court is no longer convinced that it reached the correct conclusion on that issue. [at bottom this ruling continues in full.

The court is asking the parties to do the following:

For the government to argue why the Court should not strike Violation 85

For the defense argue that if the violation is allowed, why the violations must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury instead of     a lower standard of proof. (if the violation is stricken, then no evidence needs to be presented.

For the defense to argue why the evidence should not come in as "other bad acts evidence” under federal rule of evidence 404(b). The Court must first determine whether the evidence is relevant to the case and then whether its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to Mr. Guzmán. The case is charged as a narcotics conspiracy. He is not charged with any violence. So, what is  the relevance of the violent acts to the drug case.

div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"> Attorney Eduardo Balarezo had no comment on this issue at this time.

Judge Cogan's Order to show cause

   20180815 Order to Show Cause Violation 85 by Chivis Martinez on Scribd