It’s a Sunday Night in January, 2021. I remember in 2015 I thought it would just be a few months to get this new TalkLeft site up and running. Well, a few months has turned into six years, and I still don’t know how to get the old site imported into this one, or whether this site should be TalkLeft com and the old one TalkLeft.net or how to do it.
The old site is getting too small for me to read on a mobile device. I really like this site so much better. If you haven’t registered here, please do.
It is free, and if you use your same username we will all know who you are. It’s also much more protected against Spam.
Let me know what you all think since we have some downtime while Colin is fixing whatever I messed up on the old site that’s keeping us from posting comments there
Dámaso López Núñez, aka “El Licenciado”, a long-time higher-up in the Sinaloa Cartel, whose closeness to Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman goes back to 2001 when he was a corrupt prison official who helped El Chapo escapte from Puente Grande, was first indicted in the U. S. in 2013. He recently pleaded guilty and is expected to testify against Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman-Loera at El Chapo’s upcoming trial.
The most severe sentence that can be imposed on anyone who is extradited here from Mexico is life in prison. Mexico will not extradite anyone without an assurance the person will not be subject to the death penalty.
A life sentence in the federal system means just that: There is no good time reduction and there is no parole. If you have the misfortune of being sentenced to life in prison in federal court, you will be there until you die.
Defendants plead guilty for a variety of reasons. Usually it is in exchange for a promise for a lesser sentence, either through an agreement to plead to a lesser charge, or an agreement to cooperate against others.
Sometimes it’s a gamble and the defendant loses. For example, Alfredo Beltran-Leyva, who was represented by two of the same lawyers now representing El Chapo, pleaded guilty to all the charges without a plea agreement (called a “blind plea”). The maximum sentence was life in prison. By pleading guilty as charged, he maintained his right to appeal his sentence and to request a lower sentence. He did not agree to a life sentence. He asked for 25 years. He lost the gamble, and the judge sentenced him to life in prison. His case is on appeal.
I don’t think I’ve seen a plea agreement in a case in which the death penalty is not an option, where the defendant agrees to serve a life sentence. [Plea Agreement of Damaso Lopez-Nunez, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 16-cr-00300-TSE, Doc. 29 filed 09/28/18, page 5 of 11]
[T] he parties have no agreements as to the applicability or inapplicability of any other sections ofthe Sentencing Guidelines. The United States and the defendant agree to recommend,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and the Sentencing Guidelines, that the Court sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. The United States and the defendant understand that the Court is not bound by this agreement.
Could there be a hidden promise when the Plea Agreement also states:
This written agreement constitutes the complete plea agreement between the United States, the defendant, and the defendant’s counsel. The defendant and the defendant’s attorney acknowledge that no threats, promises, or representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set forth in writing in this plea agreement, to cause the defendant to plead guilty.
Theoretically, yes, since the agreement also states:
Any modification of this plea agreement shall be valid only as set forth in writing in a supplemental or revised plea agreement signed by all parties.
It seems to me, no one in his right mind would agree to a sentence of life in prison unless it was to avoid the death penalty. Even in the age of the Donald Trump, a sentence to life plus cancer is not (yet) an option.
I think the Government, which drafts the Plea Agreement, is telling only half the story because it intends (albeit has not unequivocally promised) to request a big sentence reduction if El Licenciado pleases the Government with his trial testimony. In other words, El Licenciado may receive a life sentence, but there likely is a sealed supplement that promises he’ll get a big sentence reduction if he tells the [Government’s] truth at El Chapo’s trial.
Murillo Karam, Attorney General for Mexico, gave an interview today to Radio Fórmula during which he expressed displeasure with DOJ‘s recent plea deal with Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, son of Sinaloa co-leader Ismael Zambada-Garcia. (The details of Zambada-Niebla’s plea agreement are here.)
He also said Mexico presently has no intention of extraditing Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman to the U.S. (“no tenemos ninguna intensión de mandarlo a Estados Unidos.”) He added that Mexico still hasn’t received a formal extradition request for Chapo’s extradition. [More…]
He also said Mexico presently has no intention of extraditing Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman to the U.S. (“no tenemos ninguna intensión de mandarlo a Estados Unidos.”) He added that Mexico still hasn’t received a formal extradition request for Chapo’s extradition. Read More
There are lots of new developments in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case. Before I get to them, some readers will remember that about 10 days ago, I wrote about the newly released ABC recording of a portion of Benjamin Crump’s March 19, 2012 interview with Witness 8 and said I would follow-up with analysis.
My analysis turned out to be more than 10 typewritten pages and difficult to convert into a blog post with accessible links. I posted it earlier today, in pdf format, since it is far too lengthy for a blog post.
Although it was written before the defense filed a 58 page motion asking Judge Nelson to reconsider her denial of its request to depose Martin family lawyer Benjamin Crump, and this week's Motions for Sanctions against the State, I think it is still relevant and also provides some context, especially for those who haven't followed all the goings on with Witness 8, the woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon minutes before the shooting.
I think the biggest problem in our criminal justice system for the past 25 years has been rigid mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rand Paul introduced the bi-partisan Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013. According to Sen. Leahy:
The bipartisan Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 expands the so-called “safety valve” that allows judges to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum in qualifying drug cases to all federal crimes. By giving judges this greater flexibility, they will not be forced to administer needlessly long sentences for certain offenders, which is a significant factor in the ever-increasing Federal prison population and the spiraling costs that steer more and more of the justice budget toward keeping people in prison, rather than investing in programs that keep our communities safe.
Currently a “safety valve” provision allows low-level drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum penalties if certain conditions are met. The bill we introduce today would extend that safety valve to all Federal crimes subject to mandatory minimum penalties, allowing a judge to impose a sentence other than a statutorily designated mandatory sentence in cases in which key factors are present. The judge would be required to provide notice to the parties and to state in writing the reasons justifying the alternative sentence.
