Defending a Mexican cartel boss: Drug kingpins seek lawyers in the US
On a single day last month, the Mexican government shipped 29 accused drug lords north across the border to face US justice.
Plucked from Mexican prison cells, hustled onto planes in shackles and express-delivered into the waiting hands of American authorities were several notorious capos, whose alleged narco exploits have been chronicled in films, TV series and federal indictments spanning decades.
Among them are brothers said to be behind the brutal group known as the Zetas; reputed leaders of the Gulf, Juarez and Jalisco New Generation cartels; and the elusive Rafael Caro Quintero, wanted since the 1980s in connection with the torture and killing of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent.
All are now housed at jails across the country on charges that range from drug trafficking to murder. At least six could face the death penalty, an unusual twist due to the unique circumstances of their arrival.
With their cases now in US courts, there's been a scramble to find lawyers willing and able to defend such high-stakes clients. US President Donald Trump has complicated the situation by designating several cartels as terrorist organizations, raising concerns the Treasury Department could seek to freeze assets used to pay attorneys.
Weeks after their arrival, several notable defendants sent by Mexico on February 27 — including Caro Quintero — still have court-appointed counsel, meaning US taxpayers are footing their legal bills.
Multiple lawyers who specialize in complex federal drug and conspiracy cases described the current moment as unprecedented. Each week seems to bring fresh chaos as Trump ratchets up pressure on Mexico to topple the cartels and stanch the flow of fentanyl.
It should be boom times for the so-called white powder bar, as the practice of lawyering for the world's most prolific drug pushers has been dubbed. But some veteran attorneys are proceeding with caution, warning of unforeseen consequences from Trump's crackdown and preexisting conflicts that limit who can join certain cases.
"This is sort of like a niche practice," said Bonnie Klapper, a former federal narcotics prosecutor turned defense attorney. "I guarantee you a lot of the usual suspects won't be able to represent these people."
Klapper once helped take down Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel, but she has since switched sides, operating as private counsel. Her past work as a prosecutor precludes her from cases in which she helped craft the indictment, and she's heard from colleagues who have already spotted other conflicts, such as representing potential witnesses.
The death penalty charges further narrow the field. Capital cases require experienced "learned counsel" and bring their own unique set of challenges, not least the possibility of the client being executed. Three of the 29 prisoners sent over by Mexico are charged in California federal courts, including one death penalty case in Los Angeles.
Adding terrorism designations and pursuing the death penalty while restricting ways for former cartel members to remain in the US also risk making it harder for federal authorities to flip informants, Klapper said.
"I don't think anybody has thought through the implications of this for the criminal justice system," she said. "Because who is going to cooperate if the US won't protect them and their families?"
Mexico has abolished capital punishment and typically does not extradite citizens who could be put to death under US law. But officials on both sides of the border have tip-toed around using the word extradition for the recent handover. A news release from the Department of Justice said the US simply "secured custody" of the wanted men.
William Purpura was one of three lawyers who defended the Sinaloa cartel leader known as El Chapo during a three-month trial that ended with a conviction in 2019. That case did not involve the death penalty, but Purpura has worked on a number of others that did. He said it's a grueling endeavor, requiring "complete dedication to one client."
"A death verdict will haunt trial counsel to the execution and beyond," Purpura said. "This is not an undertaking for the usual cast of characters. It is the Chapo trial on steroids."
Purpura and others in private practice said they typically find work through referrals, relying on lawyers in Mexico and meeting with a prospective client's family to build trust before taking on a case.
Defense attorneys have allegedly broken the law in pursuit of business. Last month, a prominent Miami lawyer was charged with a bribery scheme in which prosecutors say two former DEA supervisors leaked confidential information in exchange for Yankees tickets and five-figure secret payments. The tips were about active investigations, which prosecutors said enabled the lawyer to get a head start on wooing the targets as clients.
The lawyer, David Macey, has pleaded not guilty to charges that include bribery of a public official and perjury.
"David is a devoted father and husband and a highly respected attorney with an impeccable record as a member of the bar for nearly 30 years. He did not bribe anyone," Macey's attorney, David Patton, said in a statement. "The government's allegations are false, and we are confident that the evidence will prove his innocence at trial."
Some of the highest-powered operators have taken on generations of relatives from the same family. Jeffrey Lichtman, the lead trial attorney for El Chapo, now defends his client's two sons, known as Los Chapitos, in their pending US cases. Court records also show Lichtman was recently added to the case of a suspected high-ranking Chapitos member who was among the 29 men handed over by Mexico.
Lichtman did not respond to a request for comment.
Before representing the Chapo clan, Lichtman once helped New York mob figure John Gotti Jr. beat racketeering charges.
"I'm used to dealing with clients that society has already discarded, already convicted, and being able to convince [jurors] that maybe everything the government and the press says is not 100% accurate," Lichtman said in a 2017 interview about his decision to represent El Chapo.
One of El Chapo's sons is accused of kidnapping their father's longtime Sinaloa cartel partner, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada, and delivering him to US authorities in the summer. The alleged betrayal triggered an ongoing war between cartel factions in Mexico, and left Zambada, 75, facing a possible death sentence for drug and murder charges in the Eastern District of New York. He has pleaded not guilty.
Zambada's lawyer, Frank Perez, 70, had careers as an air traffic controller and Dallas narcotics detective before building up his law practice. Perez also tried his hand at politics, launching an unsuccessful bid for Congress) as a Democrat in 2014. He recently found himself thrust into the spotlight, with Zambada's case becoming a source of international intrigue and controversy.
Perez has issued statements on the jailed Zambada's behalf, leveling the kidnapping claims against El Chapo's son and denying rumors of a secret surrender deal. Recently, Perez and two lawyers in Mexico petitioned to have Zambada returned to his home country, arguing he was "coercively transferred from Mexican territory."
The federal judge presiding over Zambada's case in Brooklyn raised concerns that Perez has a potential conflict of interest. Perez also represented his client's son, Vicente Zambada Niebla, a key witness against El Chapo who could now potentially be called to testify against his own father.
The elder Zambada said at a Jan. 15 hearing that he understood the situation and trusted his lawyer.
"He may have to withhold information he learns from speaking with Vicente that he can't share with me," Zambada said, reading a prepared statement in Spanish. "But I don't want a different attorney. I want Frank Perez to represent me."
Perez declined to comment, except to reiterate his recent public statements that his client is not cooperating with U.S. authorities and fighting to avoid the death penalty.
Court records show Perez also recently took on another high-profile client: Miguel Angel Treviño-Morales, nicknamed Z-40. Treviño-Morales was arraigned last week in Washington, where he pleaded not guilty to an array of drug and murder conspiracy charges for his alleged leadership of the Zetas.
Originally a squad of elite Mexican military defectors who became guns for hire, the Zetas formed a ruthless cartel blamed by authorities for a long list of atrocities over the last three decades. A splinter group, the Northeast cartel, was among those designated as a terrorist organization last month by the Trump administration.
The terror designation, several lawyers said, has created uncertainty about whether some standard operating procedures for cartel cases may no longer apply.
The US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control has long maintained a so-called kingpin list of suspected drug traffickers and front companies that are banned from doing business with US citizens or accessing the banking system. Usually, defense lawyers said, if they provide proper notification, disclosing how much money was received and what it was for, the agency will allow transactions for legal services.
For one thing, the system ensures tax dollars aren't unnecessarily spent on court-appointed counsel.
Eduardo Balarezo, another El Chapo trial attorney, said it's in the government's interest to allow private counsel, especially when the defendant is willing to negotiate a plea.
The deals can ensure the client has a chance of someday walking free, net the government millions of dollars in surrenders of illicit cash — and also make less work for all of the lawyers involved.
"It doesn't take that much to go in with your client to the government and listen to him talk," Balarezo said. "You have to prepare him, but it's not the same as a trial."
But with Trump rebranding cartels as terrorists, some lawyers worry the government may change its stance on payments and pleas.
"That's a huge question for all these people: Do they have assets to pay for lawyers, and is the government going to do anything about it?" said César de Castro, a New York defense attorney who has worked on several major drug cases.
Although US prosecutors have accused top-level traffickers of being billionaires, some can show on paper that they can't afford an attorney.
De Castro served as the court-appointed lawyer for Genaro García Luna, a former Mexican security official sentenced last year to 38 years in prison for taking millions in cartel bribes.
The case was under a media and political microscope, forcing De Castro to tread carefully.
"Every phrasing of everything is important," he said. "Every fricking word matters."
De Castro faced backlash during the trial when Mexico's former president took offense to the lawyer's questions about alleged cartel payments. Death threats ensued — a hazard of the job, the lawyer said.
"I don't want to be threatened or chased outside the courthouse. I have a family too. I don't need voicemails telling me I should die. But I had to do it for my client," he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.


Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.


Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Liberals, anti-Trump figures bash ABC for suspending Terry Moran over anti-Trump social media rant
Liberal pundits and anti-Trump figures slammed ABC News for suspending longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he ranted on social media about President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. "They can clutch their pearls and act mad but this is spot on from Moran," Tommy Vietor, a co-host of "Pod Save America," wrote, reacting to Moran's deleted social media post that referred to both men as "world-class hater[s]." Moran called out Trump and Miller on social media early Sunday morning and proceeded to delete the post. An ABC News spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement that Moran was suspended, saying, "The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards." "MAGA, I thought you all defended free speech and the First Amendment, right? Why are you so upset about Terry Moran's comments? Stop being such snowflakes, right? Stop looking for safe spaces. Man up," posted left-wing writer Wajahat Ali, who edits "The Left Hook" Substack. Joe Walsh, a former GOP congressman who joined the Democratic Party this year, said, "shame on you, @abcnews." "Way to NOT stand up for a free press," he added. In another post on X, Walsh called the suspension of Moran "utter b-------," and said, "You're the free press. You don't do what the authoritarian in the White House tells you to do. Thank you @TerryMoran for having the courage to speak the truth." "What Moran reported was demonstrable fact. Indisputable fact. Yet they suspend him. This is the advantage that Trump and his ilk have. They are so beyond the moral pale, so beyond normality, that it is considered impolite, impolitic, or intemperate to describe them as they are," Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway wrote. Medhi Hasan, a former MSNBC host who started his own publication, Zeteo, directed his criticism at the Trump officials who defended the president and Miller. "Snowflakes. Pretend free speech warriors. Getting journalists suspended and calling for their firing. Hypocrites," Hasan wrote. Hasan also posted on Bluesky that Moran's suspension was "'ironic given Moran went out of his way to not embarrass Trump over the president's delusion about the doctored MS13 photo, repeatedly saying 'let's agree to disagree' and 'let's move on' but they still got him suspended. You can't appease these people ever." Moran interviewed Trump about his first 100 days in office, during which Trump repeatedly called out Moran and ABC News. Trump accused Moran of "not being very nice" during an exchange about the deportation of illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia. "They're giving you the big break of a lifetime," Trump told Moran. "You're doing the interview, I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that's OK. I picked you, Terry, but you're not being very nice." Far-left former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann re-posted Moran's attacks on Miller and Trump, and called out Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, which owns ABC News. "Another coward named @RobertIger responded by letting ABC News suspend Terry indefinitely for telling the truth," Olbermann wrote. "I have copied Terry's words here and I encourage everybody, journalists especially, to do the same, or cut and paste what I've written, and put it out under your name." Others also called on their followers to share Moran's deleted post. Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, a liberal website, said Moran's suspension was a product of corporate journalism. "Independent journalism is when you can write what Terry Moran wrote without getting in trouble. Corporate journalism is when you can't," he wrote. ABC News did not immediately return a request for comment. Moran's suspension for airing his thoughts comes as public trust in the media continues to steadily erode. A Gallup survey last year showed a record-low 31 percent of Americans expressed at least a "fair amount" of trust in the media to accurately report the news. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Moran's post on X, Sunday, calling it "unhinged and unacceptable."