El Chapo’s habeas corpus petition denied, no counsel appointment

December 27, 2023 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

El Chapo. AP file photo by Eduardo Verdugo

Share this:

U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan dismissed the habeas corpus petition of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, along with his request for appointed counsel on Wednesday in Brooklyn’s federal court.

Guzman, currently incarcerated for life on charges including drug trafficking and money laundering, sought to overturn his conviction, but the court found his arguments insufficient and his financial resources ample, denying him the legal aid typically available in such proceedings.

The petition included both a counseled habeas corpus petition and a later pro se supplemental petition. However, the court found that the arguments presented lacked merit.

One of the notable aspects of the ruling was the denial of Guzman’s request for counsel. The court pointed out that, unlike criminal defendants, litigants in habeas corpus proceedings do not have a constitutional right to counsel. The judge determined that Guzman did not meet the financial eligibility criteria for counsel appointment, referencing a government’s sealed letter that indicated Guzman’s control over significant assets.

The court’s review of Guzman’s petition highlighted that most issues raised had been previously addressed and rejected on direct appeal by the Second Circuit, which had affirmed his conviction. The mandate rule, therefore, precluded these issues from being relitigated on federal habeas corpus.

Guzman’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also dismissed. The court referred to the standard set in Strickland v. Washington, which requires demonstrating that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for their errors.

Guzman’s claims, including that his prosecution violated the Rule of Specialty, objections to ex parte communications under the Classified Information and Procedures Act, and the absence of plea bargain efforts, were found to be without merit. The court noted that the Mexican government had waived the Rule of Specialty in his extradition, and that the procedures under the Classified Information and Procedures Act were correctly followed.

The Rule of Specialty is a principle in international extradition law that limits the ability of the receiving country to try, convict, or punish an individual only for the crimes for which they were extradited. This rule ensures that extradition is used strictly for its agreed-upon purpose and prevents the prosecuting country from pursuing additional charges not specified in the original extradition request. It’s a safeguard to protect the rights of the extradited individual and maintain the integrity of extradition agreements between countries.

The court addressed Guzman’s claim regarding plea bargain efforts. It concluded that considering the high-profile nature of the case and Guzman’s apparent disinterest in a plea deal, it was unrealistic to think an agreement could have been reached.

Judge Cogan held that there was no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, denying the issuance of a certificate of appealability.