Feds: El Chapo doesn't deserve retrial, evidence against drug lord was 'overwhelming'

NEW YORK — Convicted Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán should not receive a new trial because arguments that he was found guilty by a tainted jury are vague and based on anonymous hearsay, federal prosecutors argued Monday.

The prosecutors rejected defense arguments that the February conviction of the former Sinaloa drug cartel leader was unfair because some jurors reportedly ignored the court's warnings to avoid media coverage about the case — and in doing so were exposed to allegations that were not presented in court.

"No extraordinary circumstances justifying a new trial are presented here," the government lawyers contended in the 96-page filing. "These allegations do not meet the strict standard for a post-verdict hearing on this motion, let alone present a basis for a new trial."

Guzmán attorney Jeffrey Lichtman tweeted a response that accused prosecutors of being "desperate to avoid a hearing which would include testimony from jurors" because the proceeding would "reveal that jurors systematically lied to the judge regarding their claims of not seeing any media coverage during the trial."

"The Chapo Guzmán case has always been nothing more than glorified inquisition," added Lichtman.

The dueling legal arguments mark the latest legal development in the internationally watched case against the former Sinaloa drug cartel leader following his February conviction on charges of drug trafficking, weapons possession and usage, and operating a criminal enterprise.

The trial featured damning prosecution testimony by a parade of former Guzmán confederates who testified that he ruled led a violent drug conspiracy that smuggled tons of cocaine and other drugs into the United States during a decades-long criminal career. The testimony was backed by recorded calls that let jurors hear Guzmán issuing orders about the smuggling.

The verdict means that Guzmán faces an automatic sentence of life imprisonment. He remains jailed under heavy security pending his scheduled June 25 sentencing.

More:Federal jury finds drug lord Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán guilty of all counts

More:'El Chapo' allegedly had sex with underage girls, called them his 'vitamins,' records show

More:Witness: El Chapo cursed, tortured and shot enemies, ordered one buried alive

The debate over a potential new trial was spurred by a Vice News report just after Guzmán's conviction that said featured an interview with an unidentified juror or alternate juror. That person said least six jurors from the anonymous panel violated the court's instructions by actively following social media and other coverage of the 12-week trial, Vice reported.

In a motion for a new trial filed in March, defense lawyers argued the alleged violations raised the possibility that the jurors may have been improperly influenced to vote for a conviction based in part on prejudicial allegations that were not introduced as evidence. The material included a former drug lieutenant's charge that Guzmán drugged and raped young girls, plus news reports that one of the defense lawyers allegedly had an adulterous affair with a former client, the defense team claimed.

The jurors should be questioned about the reported violations during an evidentiary hearing that would include written or oral questions from the defense team, attorneys Marc Fernich and Lichtman contended.

Prosecutors rejected that conclusion.

"The defendant's motion rests entirely upon an anonymously sourced, uncorroborated article published by Vice," the government lawyers wrote. "The defendant cites to unsworn hearsay and double-hearsay allegations in the Vice news article made by an alleged juror or alternate juror."

Prosecutors also argued that the defense allegations were contradicted by the trial record. The juror cited in the Vice report did not bring any of the concerns to the attention of the judge in the case, despite ample opportunity to do so, they wrote.

"There is no indication that any juror lied to the court to conceal any purported bias against the defendant," the prosecutors wrote. "As the Vice article raises no concern that the defendant is innocent and that the jury wrongfully convicted him, a new trial is not justified."

U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan presided over Guzmán's trial and gave jurors and alternates daily warnings to avoid any media coverage of the case. Cogan is expected to weigh the prosecution and defense filings and potentially set a hearing for oral arguments. Following that, the judge is expected to rule on whether to hold an evidentiary hearing with jurors.

Federal law contains strict standards for holding such a hearing and for ordering a new trial — standards that prosecutors argued have not been met.

"Given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt at trial, there is absolutely no chance that the jury convicted an innocent person — a concern this court must harbor under binding precedent to order a new trial," prosecutors wrote. "Rather, the jury rightfully convicted the defendant, the co-leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the world's most notorious criminals and a man responsible for brutal crimes."

The government lawyers also cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision to support their argument that "sound public policy strongly disfavors post-verdict evidentiary hearings with juror testimony."

"[L]et it once be established that verdicts solemnly made and publicly returned into court can be attacked and set aside on the testimony of those who took part in their publication and all verdicts could be, and many would be, followed by an inquiry in the hope of discovering something which might invalidate the finding," the nation's highest court said in the 1987 decision.

Follow USA TODAY reporter Kevin McCoy on Twitter: @kmccoynyc