IS EL CHAPO BEING DENIED THE ABILITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF?

Government alleges attorney is passing messages on El Chapo's behalf

By Chivis Martinez

Borderland Beat
December 16, 2017

The government filed a motion seeking to delay production of discovery that would identify government witnesses because of unspecified “security concerns.” Eduardo Balarezo, attorney for Joaquín El Chapo Guzmán, responded saying that delaying production would violate his client’s right to due process, and the ability to defend himself. The government in turn replied with an incredible accusation, saying that Balarezo had contacted potential witnesses and that he had passed on messages from his client, and that one of the people spoken with took the message as a threat. The letter below denies unequivocally the government’s “baseless allegations”.

It is permissible for defense attorney’s to contact possible witnesses. Balarezo did reach out to persons that are possible witnesses, all agreed to meeting him…except one. One wonders how it is possible El Chapo could even give a threatening message to pass on to anyone, since he does not have the privilege of speaking to his attorney in private or contact visits.

Balarezo’s comment to Borderland Beat:

“I have not passed on any messages from my client to third parties, period. The government is using the same playbook against me - making allegations without proof of wrongdoing — that it will use against Mr. Guzmán at trial. They are simply trying to chill the defense and prevent us from doing our job. I look forward to addressing these allegations in court.”

Without evidence the government issued the allegation. It appears, now that the government has El Chapo under control, they are going after his attorney. First with the false accusation that Balarezo had a conflict of interest because he had been speaking to a person in Mexico that would result in a conflict. Balarezo told the court in his filing that he has never spoken to the individual.

While he sits solitary confinement, in a New York Federal Prison, the government has succeeded in, striping Guzmán of the usual rights given to all prisoners, even serial killers, mass murders, and the like. As BB has explained in former posts, it should matter to everyone that the government, who has an incredibly strong case, would jeopardized the case by denying the defendant a fair trial. It makes no sense. In my knowledge, I know of no other person prosecuted, for the crimes he is being charged with, having SAMS applied to this extent, including being denied barred of the right to speak to his attorney in private.

The controversial (SAMS), meaning special administrative measures of housing and communication of prisoners. It is used primarily for terrorists and espionage cases. The law is considered particularly controversial because it permits monitoring of attorney-client communications of designated prisoners, SAMS was initiated in November 2001 after the 911 NYC terrorists attack.

El Chapo has been denied any communication with his family, press or anyone. No letters, phone calls, in person visits. He had one visit with his sister, not in private. Also his twin daughters were able to visit him on three occasions. Any fair and reasonable person, knowing the history of Chapo can understand restriction. However, since someone is listening to his every spoken word, limited visits would not appear unreasonable, that said, I will give this to the prosecution, in the balance, as not being terribly outrageous.

Regarding the delaying of witness’s names, Balarezo filed an objection on the behalf of his client. He stressed in his filing, how the non-disclosure of witnesses places the defense at a great disadvantage. Balarezo asserts that delaying production of materials, would violate his client’s right to due process, hampering the right for him to defend himself. Balarezo stressed the importance the material in the preparation of El Chapo’s defense. In the schedule of the government’s release of material, it would appear information of the most important or case damaging witnesses would be provided to the defense with only weeks to prepare.

The material contains “the statements of cooperating witnesses that are expected to directly implicate Guzmán, to the conduct charged in the indictment.” Leaving little time to investigate and prepare for cross examination of the “long list of witnesses”.

Material being withheld include:

__Consensual video and/or audio recordings of cooperating witnesses;

__Photographs related to the defendant taken by cooperating witnesses;

__Copies of travel documents related to cooperating witnesses’ travel to meet with the defendant or otherwise conduct business on his behalf;

__Photographs of cooperating witnesses which, though not taken by cooperating witnesses, would nonetheless reveal the identity of cooperating witnesses when produced as part of the government’s Rule 16 obligations;

__Documents detailing drug transactions between the defendant and cooperating witnesses