The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The fate of Genaro García Luna is now in the hands of 12 people: these legal keys must govern the jury's decision

2023-02-16T23:35:41.634Z


The jury made up of six men and six women did not reach a verdict on the first day of deliberation to decide whether or not the former Secretary of Public Security of Mexico is guilty of drug-related crimes. "If you have any doubts, don't hesitate to acquit him," Judge Brian M. Cogan told them.


New York –

The jury that will decide the fate of the former Secretary of Public Security of Mexico, Genaro García Luna, began its deliberations this Thursday in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of New York, but the day ended without a verdict.

Deliberations in the trial against the highest-ranking former Mexican official to be tried in the United States will resume this Friday at 9:30 am (local time).

If the 12 members of the jury do not reach a unanimous decision by this Friday, they will resume the discussion on Tuesday, after the Monday holiday in the United States.

The jury made up of six men and six women (in addition to six substitutes who do not vote in the final ruling)

must decide whether or not García Luna is guilty of four charges related to drug trafficking

- for allegedly having helped the Sinaloa Cartel in exchange for bribes. millionaires—and one for false statements.

For two hours this Thursday, Judge Brian M. Cogan read to the jury the instructions they must follow to reach a ruling.

"If you have any doubts, feel free to acquit him. But if you believe the government has met its burden of proof beyond any reasonable doubt, you should convict him... beyond any personal sympathy," Cogan told them.

García Luna faces three counts of conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine in the United States

, one for organized crime and another for allegedly lying on his application for US citizenship, saying he had committed no crime.

Judge Brian Cogan instructs the jury during the trial of former Mexican Security Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna, in Eastern New York Federal Court.

Jane Rosenberg / EFE

These are some legal keys that should govern the jury deliberation process, according to the judge's instructions.

🟩 Perhaps the most basic legal aspect that will dictate the jury's decision is its level of certainty regarding García Luna's actions.

The jury

can only convict you if it finds that the evidence proves it "beyond a reasonable doubt"

.

This is the highest standard of proof and it applies to criminal cases.

🟩 The Government, the accusing party, has the burden of proof.

That is, it is solely responsible for proving the defendant's guilt "beyond any reasonable doubt."

The Prosecutor's case is based almost exclusively on the testimonies of former drug traffickers, who claim that they paid García Luna millions of dollars in exchange for his help and protection.

The former official's defense alleges that this is a lie and that there is no documentary evidence to corroborate what the witnesses have said.

[How did García Luna acquire his houses and cars?

His wife testifies that with savings, loans, investments and work bonds]

🟩 And what would be a "reasonable doubt" for the jury?

Judge Cogan explained that this is the same type of doubt that "would cause a person to hesitate to act on an important matter or make an important decision in their own life," after evaluating the information using their reasoning and common sense.

🟩 The jury cannot make a decision based on anything other than the legal principles and facts presented at trial.

They cannot be influenced by their personal beliefs, information they have read in the press

or by the personality or physical appearance of the witnesses, defendants or lawyers who participated in the process.

Walking away from the evidence "would be in breach of its obligation."

"You are going to be the sole and exclusive judge of these facts," Judge Cogan told jurors Thursday.

García Luna's defense assures that the accusations in the trial are "revenge"

Feb 16, 202300:37

🟩 Genaro García Luna did not testify during the trial against him.

His wife, Linda Cristina Pereyra, did, as the only defense witness, to describe the origin of the family assets.

The fact that García Luna has not testified should not be relevant to the jury when making his decision.

By law, García Luna had no obligation to testify.

In theory, the defense is not even required to present evidence to counter the prosecution.

The onus to prove guilt rests with the prosecution and the presumption of innocence "is enough to acquit him," Cogan said.

🟩 The number of witnesses from one side or the other is not relevant either.

In this case, the Prosecutor's Office presented 26 witnesses, including seven former members of the Sinaloa Cartel, while García Luna's defense only put his wife on the stand.

The judge explained to the jury that while they are considered valid evidence,

"they do not have to accept the testimony of any witness if they do not consider it credible

. "

"They may not believe the witnesses, even if there are many," Cogan said.

[Genaro García Luna was "the best investment of the Sinaloa Cartel": a drug lord testifies on the first day of trial]

🟩 All the ex-drug traffickers who testified did so in Spanish and their responses were translated by an interpreter.

Judge Cogan told the jurors that, even

if someone speaks Spanish, they cannot consider the answers in that language

, but what the interpreter has said because it is what is officially registered.

🟩 And how could the credibility of witnesses be assessed?

The judge asked the jury to assess the circumstances in which they testified, whether they considered them "sincere and frank" or whether they felt they were "hiding something or being evasive" in their responses.

Another aspect to evaluate is the consistency and attitude of their answers to the questions of the Government and the defense, or if the witness seemed to have some prejudice towards one or the other of the parties.

Another question a jury must ask when weighing a witness's credibility is

whether they would have motives to distort facts

, have some vested interest in the outcome of the case, or "would benefit more from lying than from telling the truth."

Genaro García Luna's wife, Linda Cristina Pereyra (center) upon her arrival at the Eastern District federal court in Brooklyn, where her husband is being tried, this Thursday, February 16.

Justin Lane / EFE

🟩 On the fact that the main testimonies against García Luna come from convicted drug traffickers who

in several cases have accepted having ordered murders or that they themselves killed and tortured people

—a claim that the defense has used to try to discredit their testimonies— the judge told the jury that "the government sometimes has to rely on the testimony of people who committed crimes; otherwise it would be impossible to prove other people's wrongdoing."

However, he asked them to "give it the weight they believe each witness deserves" and to evaluate his testimony with "great care and scrutiny."

🟩 Regarding inconsistencies between witness testimony or discrepancies in their stories over the years, Judge Cogan told the jury that while they

may be a basis to discredit them, it is not necessarily a reason to throw out what they have said

.

The judge told them that it is normal for people to be nervous or under pressure or for memory problems to affect their stories.

It is about evaluating whether they have been "innocent or intentional errors."

Source: telemundo

All news articles on 2023-02-16

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.