No death penalty for son of Mexican drug boss ‘El Chapo': US prosecutors
Federal prosecutors in the United States said they will not seek the death penalty for the son of Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo' if he is found guilty of multiple drug trafficking charges when he goes on trial.
According to media reports, federal prosecutors in Chicago filed a one-sentence notice on May 23, saying they would not seek the death penalty for Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman – the former leader of Mexico's feared Sinaloa Cartel who is serving a life sentence in a US prison.
The notice did not offer any explanation for the decision by the federal prosecutors, or further details.
Joaquin Guzman Lopez, 38, was indicted in 2023 along with three of his brothers – known as the 'Chapitos', or little Chapos – on US drug trafficking and money laundering charges after assuming leadership of their father's drug cartel when 'El Chapo' was extradited to the US in 2017.
Joaquin Guzman Lopez's lawyer said in an email to The Associated Press news agency on Tuesday that he was pleased with the federal prosecutors' decision, 'as it's the correct one'.
'Joaquin and I are looking forward to resolving the charges against him,' Lichtman said.
Joaquin Guzman Lopez has pleaded not guilty to the five charges of drug trafficking, conspiracy and money laundering against him, one of which carries the maximum sentence of death as it was allegedly carried out on US territory.
He was taken into US custody in a dramatic July 2024 arrest alongside alleged Sinaloa Cartel cofounder Ismael 'El Mayo' Zambada on a New Mexico airfield.
Zambada has also pleaded not guilty. But his lawyer told the Reuters news agency that he would be willing to plead guilty if prosecutors agreed to spare him the death penalty.
Another of the brothers, Ovidio Guzman, is expected to plead guilty to drug trafficking charges against him at a court hearing in Chicago on July 9, according to court records.
'El Chapo' Guzman is serving a life sentence at a maximum security prison in Colorado.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US judge halts deportation of family of suspect in pro-Israel rally attack
A United States judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of family members related to a suspect accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at a pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. The ruling on Wednesday came after the administration of President Donald Trump arrested the wife of Mohamed Soliman and their five children in an effort to deport them. Judge Gordon Gallagher wrote that Soliman's wife, Hayam El Gamal, and her children cannot be removed from the country as long as his order stands. 'Moreover, the Court finds that deportation without process could work irreparable harm,' the judge said. El Gamal, who has not been charged with a crime, had filed a legal petition for her release. Soliman, meanwhile, has been charged with a federal hate crime over the attack on Sunday, which injured 12 people. It is unclear if the Trump administration has any evidence that Soliman's relatives committed wrongdoing, or if they were simply targeted for their association with him. Authorities have indicated that Soliman appears to have acted alone in the attack. Still, Trump officials signalled they would take an aggressive approach to investigating and deporting individuals they perceived to be linked to 'terrorism'. 'In light of yesterday's horrific attack, all terrorists, their family members, and terrorist sympathizers here on a visa should know that under the Trump Administration we will find you, revoke your visa, and deport you,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a social media post on Monday. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed on Tuesday the detention of Elgamal, her three daughters and her two sons, four of whom are minors. 'We are investigating to what extent his family knew about this heinous attack, if they had knowledge of it, or if they provided support to it,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a video posted online. 'Justice will be served.' According to DHS, Soliman and his family arrived in the US on temporary visas in 2022 before applying for asylum. Soliman's visa expired in 2023. Media reports indicate that El Gamal, meanwhile, applied for an employment visa: She has a background as a network engineer. Critics say the tactic of penalising the relatives of a criminal suspect is a form of unlawful collective punishment. In the West Bank, for instance, human rights groups have denounced Israeli operations that demolished the homes of Palestinians related to suspects in armed attacks. The attack in Colorado has been linked to Israel's war on Gaza, which United Nations experts have described as a genocide. The suspect allegedly yelled 'Free Palestine' during the fire-bombing. The Washington-backed war has also sparked other violent incidents on US soil. The incident in Colorado followed the killing of two Israeli Embassy staff members in Washington, DC, last month. In October 2023, a six-year-old Palestinian boy was stabbed to death in the Chicago area in another crime linked to the war. The 73-year-old suspect reportedly told the boy's mother that Muslims 'must die' as he attacked them. He was sentenced to 53 years after being convicted of murder and hate crimes. Weeks later, three Palestinian American students were shot and severely wounded in Vermont. The war on Gaza has killed at least 54,607 Palestinians, according to health officials.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
White House makes misleading claims about Democratic opposition to tax bill
In a news statement this week, the White House cherry-picked personal income tax-related elements in the 'big, beautiful bill', the wide-ranging tax and spending bill being pushed by United States President Donald Trump, and claimed that, in opposing the legislation as a whole, the Democratic Party was opposed to every individual item contained within it. Such a tactic is misleading, particularly since the White House cited measures in the bill that have been championed by Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and are not the reasons the Democrats have given for opposing the 'big beautiful bill'. Here's a fact-check of what the White House claims Democrats oppose: 'They're opposing the largest tax cut in history, which will put an extra $5,000 in their pockets with a double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills. In fact, Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay around 15% less in taxes.' The specifics of the tax bill have not been finalised. In its current form, it would cut taxes by an average of 2.4 percent, for middle-income households, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center. While it is a significant tax cut, it is not the biggest in history. That was under Ronald Reagan in 1981 at 2.9 percent. It is accurate that there will be a double-digit percentage decrease in tax bills, at least in the immediate term, at a little more than 11 percent across all tax brackets. It is also true that people earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay 15 percent less, according to the Non-Partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. 'They're opposing NO TAX ON TIPS for the millions of Americans who work in the service industry and NO TAX ON OVERTIME for law enforcement, nurses, and more.' This is true only in their opposition to Trump's tax and spending bill. Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of no tax on tips. Both Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris pledged to do so on the campaign trail. Senate Democrats backed the No Tax on Tips Act, passed by the US Senate on May 20. The bill, authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was co-sponsored by notable Democrats, including Jacky Rosen of Nevada and passed unanimously. 'They're opposing historic tax cuts for senior citizens' Outside of the 'big beautiful bill', Democrats have generally not opposed tax cuts for seniors. Many Democrats have championed legislation that would expand tax cuts for seniors. California Democrat Jimmy Panetta co-sponsored a Republican led bill that would increase the standard deduction for adults over the age of 65 by $4,000. In 2024, House Democrats introduced the 'You Earned It, You Keep It Act', which would effectively eliminate taxes on social security benefits. The bill, however, has never made it past committee. 'They're opposing a boost to the child tax credit.' Again, they are opposing Trump's 'big beautiful bill', not objecting to the child tax credit. In fact, Democrats have long pushed to expand the child tax credit. In April, Senate Democrats, including Georgia's Raphael Warnock and Colorado's Michael Bennett, introduced legislation that would expand the child tax credit. The bill would increase the tax credit, from $2,000 where it currently stands, to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one to six and $3,600 for children six to 17, permanently. While the 'big beautiful bill' would also increase the child tax credit, it would do so only by $500, and that would kick in in 2028. 'They're opposing new savings accounts for newborns and the chance for children across America to experience the miracle of compounded growth.' In the 'big beautiful bill', House Republicans introduced new savings accounts for children. The accounts would include a $1,000 handout for every child born between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2029. Democrats have not only been supporters of the idea for savings accounts for newborns, but prominent Democrats actually championed it. In 2018, Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which would also give $1,000 to newborns and up to $2000 in annual contributions. He reintroduced the bill again in 2023. 'They're opposing expanded access to childcare for hardworking American families.' This appears to be false. The White House link refers to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, not child care access. Trump's bill offers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who have worked a year and earn $57,600 or less. While that gives parents more time at home, Democrats have focused on expanding access to child care, including universal pre-K. In 2023, Republicans opposed a Democratic plan to keep child care centres open that struggled in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. 'They're opposing historic border security to keep their communities safe.' Last year, Trump pressured Republicans to vote against a bipartisan border security bill, a move that reportedly helped Trump's chances of winning in November 2024. Democrats have opposed Republican plans to use US military bases for migrant detention, arguing that it misuses Department of Defense resources. Democrats have long opposed border wall funding, including during Trump's first term. A 2018 Stanford University analysis estimated that a border wall would reduce migration by just 0.6 percent. Despite this, the 'big beautiful bill' allocates more than $50bn to complete the wall and maritime crossings, $45bn for building and maintaining detention centres, and $14bn for transportation. 'They're opposing expanded health savings accounts that give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how they spend their money.' This is sort of true. Democrats have not been huge proponents of health savings accounts. The belief is that healthcare savings accounts do not help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who may not have the financial resources to contribute to the accounts. Democrats have also objected to other cuts to healthcare in the bill, including the potential $880bn that could be cut from essential government programmes like Medicaid. 'They're opposing scholarships that empower Americans to choose the education that best fits the needs of their families.' In the bill, the White House is conflating the longstanding debate on school choice with scholarships. Under school choice, funds otherwise allocated to the public school system can be re-allocated to private institutions, which Republicans argue will allow students to have potential access to a higher quality education. Democrats have opposed school choice because it diverts funds from public school systems, many of which are already drastically underfunded. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, for example, pushed legislation that would expand school choice, even as three out of four school districts in the state are underfunded, according to a Kinder Institute analysis.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump must facilitate legal challenges of deported Venezuelans: Judge
A federal judge in the United States has ruled that Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador under an obscure 1798 law must be given the chance to challenge their removals and detention. The ruling on Wednesday by Judge James Boasberg is the latest setback to President Donald Trump's efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to quickly expel alleged gang members from the US without due process. Trump initially invoked the wartime law in March, arguing that the presence of the Tren de Aragua gang in the US represented an invasion. Trump's use of the law to fast-track deportations was quickly blocked by Boasberg, but not before two planes carrying 238 deportees had already departed the US for El Salvador. The Trump administration refused the judge's order to turn the plane around. Boasberg has since said he has found probable cause to believe the administration committed contempt of court. Upon landing in El Salvador, the deportees were locked up in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Centre, known as the CECOT prison, as part of a deal with the Trump administration. In Wednesday's order, Boasberg wrote that there was 'significant evidence' indicating that many of the individuals imprisoned in El Salvador are not connected to Tren de Aragua. They 'thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations', Boasberg said. Court documents previously indicated that some of the men may have been deported based only on their tattoos or clothing. Boasberg wrote that the administration 'plainly deprived' the immigrants of a chance to challenge their removals before they were put on flights. He ruled that their cases must now be given the right to be heard before a court, as they 'would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process'. 'That process – which was improperly withheld – must now be afforded to them,' Boasberg wrote. 'Absent this relief, the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.' The ruling did not expressly order the Trump administration to return the deported people to the US. The US Supreme Court previously ruled that people deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be given a chance to challenge their removal, and it paused certain planned deportations that would have been conducted using the law. A case currently being heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to eventually make its way to the top court for a final decision. Until then, various challenges have played out in lower courts, with three federal judges in New York, Texas and Colorado having so far ruled that Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act is illegal. A fourth federal judge, in Pennsylvania, has ruled that Trump was within his powers to invoke the law. Trump campaigned on a pledge to conduct a mass deportation of 'criminal' non-citizens living in the US, but his efforts have been hampered by legal challenges and backlogged immigration courts. Immigration advocates say that has led the administration to seek various means of fast-tracking deportations, including by circumventing due process.
