'El Chapo' Lawyer Claims Juror Misconduct in Appeal for New Trial - Rolling Stone
Home Culture Culture News

‘El Chapo’ Conviction Upheld After Appeal

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals shot down claims that the drug kingpin deserved a new trial over alleged jury misconduct and more

Joaquín el chapo guzman appeal juror misconduct hearingJoaquín el chapo guzman appeal juror misconduct hearing

Courtroom sketch of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzman at his sentencing hearing in 2019.

Elizabeth Williams/AP

UPDATE (1/25/22): A U.S. appeals court has upheld Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman’s conviction on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, weapons charges, and money laundering. The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued its ruling Tuesday, Jan. 25, shooting down arguments that Guzman deserved a new trial because of alleged jury misconduct, incarceration conditions, and more.

The jury misconduct allegation was central to the appeal. After Guzman was found guilty, one anonymous juror claimed to Vice News that some of his fellow jurors disregarded the judge’s instructions to ignore media coverage of the trial. In the appeal ruling, however, Judge Jon Newman said the uncorroborated statements weren’t “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence” to warrant an investigation into jury misconduct. “None of the allegations in the Vice News article shows that any juror was not impartial, harbored bias against Guzman, or was otherwise unfit to serve,” Newman said.

Marc Fernich, a lawyer for Guzman, tells Rolling Stone, “While respecting the Court’s ruling, we’re disappointed that substantial allegations of grave jury misconduct continue to be swept under the rug and left wholly unexamined in a case of historic proportion — all, it appears, because of the defendant’s matchless notoriety.”


A lawyer for Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman argued that the drug kingpin deserves a new trial, primarily based on a report of alleged jury misconduct. 

Guzman’s lawyer, Marc Fernich, made his argument before a three-panel judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Monday, October 25th. The appeal had been in the works essentially since Guzman was found guilty of all charges against him February 2019: Not long after the jury reached its verdict, one anonymous juror spoke with Vice and claimed at least five fellow jurors disregarded orders to ignore media coverage of the trial. The juror also said that their peers had heard bout allegations against Guzman unrelated to those he was on trial for, including that he had drugged and raped children. 

Fernich said this “in-depth firsthand account of… breathtaking juror misconduct” had been swept under the rug, and argued later that a hearing or investigation into the juror’s statements was necessary, even if it turned out the misconduct claims were false. “It’s very disquieting in a case like this to do an end-around and just let it go,” he said. “I get that there’s going to be some quantum of intrusion, but this guy is going to be in a box for the rest of his natural life. I’m not asking you to play violins for him, and I’m not playing violins for him either.” 

On top of his concerns about jury misconduct, Fernich also argued that a new trial was warranted because of Guzman’s pre-trial incarceration conditions. He claimed, for instance, that Guzman’s time in solitary confinement impacted his mental condition and ultimately prevented him from properly participating in the construction of his defense. 

The hearing at times grew contentious, especially when the judges questioned Ferich’s claims about Guzman’s pre-trial conditions, and when Fernich claimed a lower court judge did not properly consider the Vice report of juror misconduct. But at least one judge on the appellate panel did seem open to Fernich’s argument about the jury misconduct, saying, “And you made the argument that what is in the article consists of: If we take it as true that the jurors consistently… followed news reports; specifically were aware of highly prejudicial allegation — at least in the ordinary case — highly prejudicial allegations that were kept out of the trial; and three, deliberately lied to the judge about what they had done… Sounds like not a bad argument. I’ll be interested in what the government has to say.” 

Speaking for the government, federal prosecutor Hiral Mehta argued that a new trial wasn’t necessary, and a lower court judge was right to reject a request over the misconduct allegation, because the evidence in the Vice article wasn’t competent enough: “It’s anonymously sourced, it’s uncorroborated, it is heresy and double heresy, and its allegation are easily controverted by the trial record,” he said. Mehta added that the record showed some jurors had acknowledged to the judge that they had seen news items about Guzman during the trial.

A ruling on the appeal will be issued at a later date.

In This Article: El Chapo


Powered by
Arrow Created with Sketch. Calendar Created with Sketch. Path Created with Sketch. Shape Created with Sketch. Plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.