Rafael Caro Quintero Extradition Delay, There Will Be An Amparo Trial

"HEARST" for Borderland Beat 

Yesterday, judges ruled on two of Rafael Caro Quintero’s amparo filings. In one, a judge ruled that he cannot be deported from Mexico to the US until his other amparo claims against extradition have been reviewed and ruled on.

Two Amparos Down, More Still To Go 

On July 16, 2022, Rafael Caro Quintero was officially notified of the provisional arrest warrant for extradition purposes inside Altiplano prison. This notification is the first step outlined in the US-Mexico extradition treaty. 

In response, Caro Quintero’s legal team filed requests for a number of injunctions (or "amparos," as they are known in Mexico). One of these was an injunction appeal filed on July 16, 2022, on his behalf by his sister Beatriz Angélica Caro Quintero. Another was an appeal against authorities keeping him in prison incommunicado.

On July 18, 2022, President Obrador Lopez said in his morning press conference that Caro Quintero’s legal team "are asking for the protection of the gentleman through amparo appeals [...] for his release, arguing that there were errors in the procedure.”

This comes as no surprise, as this is almost always the case when cartel leaders are arrested and extradition is requested. When the US requested the extradition of Joaquín Guzmán, “El Chapo”, his legal team filed a number of amparos in 2014, after his second arrest, and again in 2016, after his third arrest. 

These amparos are usually predicated on small, legal technicalities related to actions taken during the arrest process. 

The first ruling on one of these appeals came on July 18, 2022. The ruling was in regards to the appeal filed by the sister, which argues that the Mexican government cannot deport or expel Rafael Caro Quintero out of Mexico (presumably to the US) without having completed the standard extradition procedure that was outlined in the extradition treaty between the two countries. 

This appeal was potentially made in response to the US Attorney General Merrick Garland’s public statement in which he said the US would seek Caro Quintero’s “immediate extradition.”

After his sister filed the appeal, the court clerk brought the amparo to Rafael Caro Quintero in Altiplano prison and there he ratified (aka signed off on) it. Then, the amparo was brought before Judge Francisco Reséndiz Neri, Seventh District Judge for Criminal Matters in Jalisco. 

After reviewing it, the judge ruled against any potential deportation or expulsion from the country, "without the corresponding extradition procedure having been followed in accordance with the Extradition Treaty between Mexico and the United States" and “the interested party must remain in the place where he is, at the disposal of this amparo jurisdictional body, [...] until the present amparo trial is resolved."

Another ruling came shortly after, this one from Judge Guillermo Francisco Urbina Tano in Mexico City, who ruled that Rafael Caro Quintero cannot be held by authorities incommunicado. This appeal and subsequent ruling is standard fare for cartel leader legal proceedings.

The Death Penalty Question 

Some states in the US have the death penalty whereas the Mexican government “opposes the death penalty as a matter of principle and has a strong policy of protecting its nationals abroad including in the United States,” according to Mexican Embassy spokesman Ricardo Alday. 

Within the extradition treaty signed by the two nations, Mexico is given the option of asking the US for assurances that the person being extradited will not face the death penalty. 

Article Eight of the 1978 U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty states that extradition may be refused by Mexico unless the U.S. "furnishes such assurances… that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed."

For some context, let's look at how this issue was dealt with in the Chapo case. One of the US states requesting his extradition was Texas, a state known for the death penalty. Texas had also indicted Chapo back in 2012 in a case that had as one of his charges conspiracy to commit murder. The potential that the death penalty might be imposed became one of the key legal grounds that Chapo’s team of attorneys focused on. 

US officials seemed to fully anticipate and accept assurances against the death penalty would have to be given; with former Chief of Operations at the DEA, Michael Braun saying “the U.S. will have to agree not to execute Guzmán after he’s convicted, before we can ever hope to get our hands on him.”

Then, Mexico’s foreign ministry stated that it had been “given ‘sufficient guarantees’ by the U.S. government that Guzman would not be executed. [...] A U.S. Justice Department official confirmed that the United States had agreed not to seek the death penalty,” and thus, the extradition went forward. 

It's interesting to note that Chapo was prosecuted for a homicide related charge during his US trial. Within the ten counts he was brought up on, Count One - Violation 27 was Conspiracy to Commit Murder, of which the jury found him guilty. 

But it should be noted that within the state of New York, a person found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder - even if its in the first degree - faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, not the death penalty. 

Later on, the judge in Chapo’s New York trial hinted at his inability to give Chapo the death penalty, saying that “even if the law had allowed him any leeway, he would have imposed the harshest sentence available.”

11:00 am CST Update: Milenio newspaper just put out an article about an hour ago which says that the federal judge who ruled that RCQ cannot be deported or expelled from the country until the end of his trial now “declines to continue with the case”. 

What this really means is that Judge Reséndiz Neril, who is located in Jalisco, “declined jurisdiction” to continue hearing the case - namely because RCQ is being held in a prison in the state of Mexico, outside of his jurisdiction. That being said, Judge Reséndiz Neril’s ruling on the amparo still stands so basically nothing has changed.

Sources: El Economista, Proceso, El Universal, Forbes Article 1, Article 2, The Washington Post, Santa Maria Times, Insight Crime, CI Brief, The Marshall Project