El Chapo trial: "Chapo Had Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentes killed for refusing to shake his hand

Chivis Martinez Borderland Beat Thank you JL my legal mind friend

Image of the Diamond crusted weapon belonging to El Chapo entered into evidence

Jesus “EL Rey” Zambada, continued his 3rd day of testimony in the Brooklyn trial of El Chapo. Today he dove into narco murder, such as a volley of bullets causing the decapitation of Julio Beltran Quintero. Another was Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentes, who allegedly refused to shake the hand of El Chapo, and he was eliminated. Another, police commander named “Rafita,” was lured to his death by a lie saying his son was hit by a car, the lie supported by special effects.

Rafita: El Rey said “Rafita” was a police commander  who was on the BLO payroll.  El Rey  alleges Chapo and El Rey’s brother,  El Mayo Zambada, had sicarios killed him by trickery.  Rafita’s small son had just left to school, when sicarios screeched tires and slammed on brakes to assimilate an accident, they then went to Rafita’s home and reported his son had been hit by a car. Rafita was killed as he rushed from the home.

El Rey said “The boy didn’t even realize that anything happened.  He just kept going on to school.”

Rodolfo:  Was the brother of Amado “Lord of the Skies” Carrillo Fuentes.  El Rey says they were all at so called “Peace Meeting”.  As it ended, Chapo extended his hand saying “See you later friend”, and Rodolfo just stood there, as Chapo kept his hand extended.” Says Zambada.   

“Rodolfo was killed coming out of a movie theater with his family”. 

Rodolfo and his wife, Giovanna Quevedo, as well as a caretaker of the Cinépolis, lost their lives in the confrontation. The commander Pedro Pérez, who was escorting Rodolfo Carrillo, was seriously injured. Rodolfo’s children were not hurt.

This assassination then caused the narco war between rival cartels Sinaloa and Juarez, 'El Rey' testified.

Julio Beltran Quintero:  [not Beltran Leyva as in the U.S. press] El Rey says that Chapo had Julio Beltran, a member of Sinaloa Cartel,  killed in 2005, after he disobeyed an order not to make a cocaine shipment to Acapulco.

Interesting Note:

Back in 2014 when the superseding indictment was released, this is how Rio Doce reported the story:

According to accusation 2009R01065 / OCDETF # NY-NYE-616, presented last September 25 in the Eastern District of New York, Chapo Guzmán along with Mayo Zambada planned and executed the death of Rodolfo Carrillo Fuentes and Julio Cesar Beltrán Quintero, both murdered by gunfire in Culiacán on September 11, 2004, and July 13, 2005, respectively. This means that, if extradited, both capos would face charges of intentional homicide, as well as accusations of drug trafficking, criminal association, conspiracy against the United States, money laundering, and illegal possession of firearms.  

"It would be an unprecedented trial, because the United States does not have jurisdiction in homicides that occurred outside its territory, although I suppose that what they are looking for is to strengthen the case against these two people so that when they are in a court, punish them with all the weight of the law, "said Alan Raphael, professor of international law at Loyola University in Chicago.  

El Niño de oro and  el Julión

Two cases stand out in the file because they are mentioned with names: The murder of the minor of the Carrillo Fuentes, Rodolfo alias " El Niño de oro ", and Julio Beltrán Quintero. Both murdered in Culiacán, and in both cases with police protection.

Rodolfo Carrillo was ambushed in the Plaza Cinépolis, and killed in the parking lot with his wife Giovanna Quevedo Gastélum on September 11, 2004 when they left the plaza. They were escorted by ministerial police, including Commander Pedro Pérez López, who had been suspended by Governor Juan Millán after two attacks he suffered on the capital's boardwalk.

In the murder of Julio Beltrán Quintero, also mentioned in the indictment, which occurred on the night of July 13, 2005, they were also active commanders as escorts. In this case four elements of the Protection Services, the private security area of ​​the government. They traveled in a Nissan maximum, gray and without license plates. All armed and just behind the Red Jetta, red, with plates VHH-3304, inside alone was Julio  Beltrán.

They were hit on Alvaro Obregon Avenue, the main street in the city. The four dead police officers-escorts, who were ambushed did not have time to react, they were all killed.

Cross examination

Cross began by the defense Monday afternoon.  Defense attorney William Purpura as expected he set out to discredit El Rey.

He pointed out a discrepancy with respect to El Rey meeting Chapo only after his prison escape in 2001. Purpura asked how is it he was testifying to what Chapo had been doing in the decades up until then.

El Rey said, “My brother El Mayo had told me things.”

Regarding conversations of nearly 20 years ago, “Are you gifted with absolute verbatim recall?”

El Rey said “no, I can’t guarantee that.  I am now an old man.” 

Purpura pointed out inconsistencies between his testimony now and original statements given to prosecutors.   El Rey said that while aspects of his account may be changed since his original statements to prosecutors,   his  testimony was true.

Purpura asked El Rey, how it was possible Guzman outranked him, when there was evidence Chapo needed to go through him to get his supplies of cocaine.

Purpura then pointed to an organizational chart, focusing on Zambada’s mugshot from a lower portion of chart and held it above one of El Chapo’s

“How does that look?” asked Purpura.

“Fine,” El Rey said unable  holding back a grin, “I’m below him.”

Hearsay:

Most of El Rey’s testimony seems to be hearsay.  Which is something I always thought was not allowed. 

However, in Wednesday’s transcript, of last week, page 39 relates to hearsay. Judge Cogan  asks the lawyers to look at FRE 801(d)(2)(D). This is the section of the Federal Rules of Evidence that governs statements made by certain witnesses regarding out of court statements by associates, employees, partners, co-conspirators, etc. This section says:

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay.

(2) An Opposing Party's Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(D) Was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) Was made by the party's co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The Federal Rules of Evidence and under the rules of evidence of most states, there are certain statements made by a witnesses that are not considered hearsay even though they are based on an out of court statement or not based on direct knowledge or experience. What the law has decided --and embodied in the rules of evidence-- is that these statements, in the context in which they are made, have many characteristics that make them reliable and valid evidence. So, for example, the witness may have been involved in a criminal enterprise with the out of court declarants (here, Mayo Zambada or Chapo), which makes their statements admissible in spite of the fact that they are not in court. Another class of admissible hearsay is a statement against interest. For example, the witness in this transcript makes repeats statements that are highly incriminatory, statements that would otherwise not be made by the out of court declarant. In some cases, the statements were made by Chapo, so it is a statement against an opposing party. In others, the statements were made by Mayo Z., who was a co-conspirator of employer of the witness.