Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as “El Chapo,” was convicted of an array of drug offenses on February 12, 2019, in a federal court in Brooklyn after an eleven-week trial. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction on January 25, 2022. The trial earned unprecedented media coverage and was by far the most significant narcotics trial in history. Eight days after the verdict, a VICE News story by Keegan Hamilton reported a member of the jury reached out to him and admitted pervasive misconduct, including jurors constantly following the case in the media. Unless Hamilton invented the malfeasance, Guzmán deserves an evidentiary hearing to explore VICE’s account and legitimate consideration to whether he should be granted a new trial.
The height of insolence was the juror relaying how he or she provided a tutorial to fellow panelists on how to “keep a straight face” and lie to the trial judge to convince the court jurors never looked at media reports which alleged Guzmán and a cooperating witness sexually assaulted adolescent females. A close second in terms of intransigence was a juror using a smartwatch to look up a story concerning a sexual affair of Guzmán’s lead attorney right after the trial judge tipped the jury off to it. While lying to federal authorities in formal proceedings and investigations has resulted in prosecution for well-connected public figures, Guzmán’s trial showcases a brand of dishonesty prosecutors and judges are not eager to tackle: jurors who lie while convicting a criminal defendant.
The Sixth Amendment grants defendants the right to a trial before an impartial jury. This guarantee involves taking traditional measures to prevent jurors from following cases in the media and speaking about the case before deliberations. The prohibitions prevent the jury from hearing information which could unfairly influence their decision-making process. Instructions on these rules are standard and were provided daily to Guzmán’s jury. Evidence from VICE showing jurors blatantly disregarding such instructions speaks to whether Guzmán’s panel was qualified to impose guilt. The obligation of jurors to follow basic rules is facing a critical test. Unfortunately, at the circuit level, the three judge panel overlooked the wrongdoing and defered to the deteminations of the trial judge denying any relief. This had the effect of ratifying reports of deplorable juror conduct. A petition to the Supreme Court is expected, where the high court will have a final opportunity to reaffirm consequences for manifest breaches of these rules.
More than imprisonment, Guzmán endures solitary confinement in a windowless cell for twenty-three hours a day at the supermax facility in Colorado. It is an existence well-regarded as psychological torture. Former supermax warden Robert Hood described, “[i]n my opinion, it’s far much worse than death.” Conducting or assisting a military operation against a state target, as the government did with Pablo Escobar, is its own sphere not subject to court rules. However, if the government is to take someone from their homeland and provide a trial on the merits, there should be a process untainted by unscrupulous jurors who lie at every turn.
This Article begins by providing a brief background of Guzmán’s life and how he was extradited to the United States. It then explains the jury selection process, trial proceedings and the malfeasance reported to VICE. Thereafter, this Article describes the post-trial motions and decisions of the Second Circuit and district court denying relief and lays out the critical reasons Guzmán deserves another day in court.