Ex-lawyer for El Chapo wins judge position in Mexico
MEXICO CITY, June 17 (Reuters) - Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, has won a criminal judge position in Mexico's controversial judicial elections, results showed on Tuesday.
Delgado's candidacy drew scrutiny from opponents to the judicial overhaul, one of the most radical to be enacted by any country in the Western Hemisphere in recent years, stoking concerns that the vote could threaten Mexico's rule of law.
Civil rights group Defensorxs highlighted Delgado, a Chihuahua state-based attorney who represented the notorious former chief of the Sinaloa Cartel in 2016, as a "high risk candidate" for her past ties to El Chapo, a characterization she vehemently rejected.
Critics saw Delgado's bid to become a criminal court judge in the border town Ciudad Juarez as emblematic of broader fears about the vote's threat to Mexican democracy, and the possible removal of checks and balances on the ruling Morena party and the increasing influence of organized crime groups over the judiciary.
The June 1 vote, which stemmed from a sweeping constitutional reform in September 2024, was the first-of-its-kind with Mexico's electorate voting for more than 840 federal judge and magistrate positions, including Supreme Court justices, and thousands more local positions.
Analysts say the newly elected Supreme Court leans heavily towards Morena.
An online vote tally by Chihuahua state electoral body IEE, with 100% of ballots accounted for, showed Delgado netted the second-highest number of votes, securing her a judge position. The results had not yet been formalized on Tuesday afternoon.
As an attorney on El Chapo's legal team, Delgado visited him weekly in prison to share updates before he was extradited to the United States and eventually sentenced to life in prison.
Delgado said she would not comment until her win was formally confirmed.
Defensorxs President Miguel Meza called on Delgado's competitors to file a lawsuit to block her victory on the basis that she does not meet a Constitutional requirement that candidates be of "good reputation."
Defensorxs also flagged a number of other candidates it said should not have been allowed to run, and Meza said the organization had filed complaints for about 20 winning candidates to Mexico's federal electoral authority INE. Meza said the authority had so far not disqualified anyone.
"What INE is doing is basically eliminating the good reputation requirement which is in the Constitution," Meza said in an interview with Reuters.
A media representative for INE declined to comment. The authority has said it would investigate complaints and invalidate any winning candidates deemed unfit for office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Why families separated during Trump's first term face new risks as legal aid remains in limbo
A US district judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore legal services for potentially thousands of migrant families after officials violated a historic settlement agreement that had forced the federal government to repair some of the devastating impact of the family separation scandal from the first Trump White House that sparked bipartisan uproar at the time. Judge Dana Sabraw has mandated that the executive branch resume services by an independent contractor advising parents and children who were separated during Donald Trump's 'zero tolerance' policy at the US-Mexico border in 2017 and 2018, when accounts of traumatic scenes spread around the world and a secret recording was made public of terrified, sobbing children being torn from their parents by federal agents, to be detained separately. These legal services help families apply for permission to stay in the US, having been allowed to return or remain years after they were broken up by the first Trump administration for crossing the southwest border without authorization. It is unclear when or if the federal government will comply with Sabraw's decision last week. At stake are the families' futures in the US, and even whether they will be vulnerable to Trump's current mass deportation campaign, which is now leading to similar scenes, this time across the US interior, where other children and spouses scream and sob as their family is effectively separated amid escalating immigration enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the Trump administration in court this spring over its 'sudden and unexplained termination' of contracted legal services for those covered in the 2023 settlement that had finally emerged, during the Biden administration, from the ACLU's lawsuit 'on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents' from Trump 1.0. That settlement provided the formerly separated families with assisted access to basic legal help, and the Biden administration complied with its requirements last year by hiring an independent contractor – the Washington DC-based Acacia Center for Justice – to run a new program, Legal Access Services for Reunified Families (LASRF). Trump then failed to renew Acacia's contract – and the court ruled breach of settlement. 'This is not a minor or technical breach. In the absence of lawyers to assist them, these children who have suffered so much at the hands of the first Trump administration will be in real danger of being separated again,' ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement. 'This ruling will help make sure that doesn't happen.' Through LASRF, formerly separated families aren't guaranteed free, full representation. But they are given limited support that can be gamechanging. For instance, with filling out forms that could help stop them from being deported from the US, or make getting jobs possible, or reopen an immigration court case to pursue the protection they had hoped to ask for years ago when they were criminalized by Trump 1.0. However, this spring, Trump 2.0 abruptly 'federalized' the LASRF program at the suggestion of Elon Musk's so-called department of government efficiency (Doge). In practice, that meant the responsibility of orienting, informing and referring out formerly separated families to a small number of pro bono attorneys now fell to staffers at the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which houses the immigration courts (in the executive branch of government not the judicial branch). These are the same immigration courts where people are increasingly afraid to go now, because of rampant arrests nationwide by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in a highly unorthodox collusion between court and enforcer – as judges are allowing government attorneys to quickly dismiss potentially meritorious cases for protection, so that the administration can deport families with ease. And these are the immigration courts that will eventually adjudicate the formerly separated families' fate, even as its parent sub-agency provides legal help. In its court challenge, the ACLU had pointed out that EOIR providing these legal services itself signified 'a clear conflict'. And, in his decision, Sabraw slammed the government for failing to provide the quality and quantity of services required, ordering the Trump administration to rehire Acacia. Turnout has been low in recent weeks – three or six attenders – for virtual group orientations hosted by EOIR's version of the LASRF program, even as the sub-agency said it would primarily focus on those kinds of group services, not the individualized help that is so often necessary to successfully apply for legal relief in the US. And if families tried to look elsewhere for free legal advice, they were likely to come up short after the Trump administration defunded other programs such as immigration court help desks and detention-based legal orientation programs across the country. 'It's particularly indicative of how cruel and anti-children this administration is. You know, they seem to have no interest in a fair day in court for people, including those living with lifelong trauma caused by their [previous] policies,' said Jess Hunter-Bowman, a senior attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the independent subcontractors that has provided services through LASRF. Thousands of families were separated at the US-Mexico border during the first Trump administration, including a Guatemalan father and his 10-year-old son in Texas. When the father – whom the Guardian is not identifying for his safety – learned he was going to be deported, his son was off playing with other kids at the detention center where they were being held. Agents had refused to let father and son say goodbye. The kid played on, oblivious as his father was chained as if he were a dangerous criminal and removed in tears, forced to leave his son behind. The boy was also eventually sent back to Guatemala. Several years later, as they were barely scraping by, they received an unexpected invitation for their family to come to the US, as part of the federal government's attempt, now under the Biden administration, to answer for family separations like theirs. Despite the previous mistreatment and trauma, the pull of the American dream remained unassailable, and in a matter of months, the father, son and their loved ones touched down stateside. Although their first days in a new country were difficult, they soon found work and community. And, when they eventually needed help with their next steps in the immigration process, they turned to a lawyer who, through LASRF, patiently guided them through complex application forms they needed to fill out in English – a language they don't speak. Because of the program, their entire family has been able to preserve humanitarian permissions and can continue to live and work legally in the US while they pursue more permanent status. 'If it hadn't been for the attorney's help,sincerely, I wouldn't have been able to do anything,' the father said. The Trump administration has not yet contacted Acacia about the ruling, which means services have not been able to resume. For good measure, judge Sabraw flayed the original 'zero tolerance' strategy at the border. 'The policy resulted in the separation of thousands of parents from their minor children, many of whom remain separated to this day,' he wrote. 'The policy caused lasting, excruciating harm to these families, and gratuitously tore the sacred bond that existed between these parents and their children.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Man from St Just shot in Mexico 'in wrong place at wrong time'
A 36-year-old UK man killed in Mexico was "in the wrong place at the wrong time" an inquest has Corser from St Just in Cornwall was shot alongside two of his friends while they were sitting in a car outside a supermarket in Colima on 24 May inquest at Cornwall Coroner's Court heard on Wednesday police in Mexico had recorded a report from a witness but had been unable to find the coroner Emma Hillson found Mr Corser had died as a result of unlawful act manslaughter and unlawful killing. Mr Corser's family told the inquest he and friends Claudio and Alfredo had driven to a supermarket in the city and had been shot as they sat in the car, at about 18:40."It is most likely that this was a question of Ben and Claudio and Alfredo being tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time," the family inquest heard Mr Corser had been found unconscious at the scene and had been taken to the regional university hospital for was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, at 22: post-mortem recorded he had sustained chest wounds consistent with "a projectile shot by a firearm" and a bullet had been inquest heard homicide police officers in Colima had recorded a witness to the incident who said she had heard gunshots and thrown herself to the told them she had seen a closed white van with the driver's door open but she had not seen who was in the Hillson said the Mexican police told her it had gathered footage from a surveillance camera at the scene which had shown a grey vehicle but that no further characteristics, including model and registration number, had been visible. 'Incredibly difficult' She said police had confirmed its homicide investigation was continuing but on 4 June the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) had said "it is unlikely further information would be forthcoming because of the amount of time passed since the death".Ms Hillson said as three years had passed since Mr Corser's death she agreed with the gave her condolences to Mr Corser's family and friends and said: "It is incredibly difficult to wait this time and have no more evidence since then and it be unlikely to have more."Mr Corser's family said: "If there ever is a conclusion drawn by the Mexican authorities as to why and by whom he was killed, that is little consequence to his family because Ben lives on in all of our hearts and in many other ways."
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
El Chapo: Lawyer Silvia Delgado who defended drug lord elected as judge
A former defence lawyer for the jailed drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán has been elected as a judge in Mexico's first-ever judicial published on Tuesday showed that Silvia Delgado had won enough votes to secure a position as a local criminal judge in the city of Ciudad Juárez, on the US-Mexico border. Her candidacy was one of the most controversial in the election held on 1 June. A leading transparency organisation accused Delgado of being one of several candidates with alleged links to organised crime on the ballot sheet, an accusation she dismissed vehemently, arguing that she had simply been doing her job by defending El Chapo. The 51-year-old lawyer was part of the defence team for El Chapo before the notorious drug lord was extradited from Mexico to the United States in leader of the Sinaloa cartel was found guilty of drug trafficking in 2019 and is serving a life sentence in a supermax prison in Colorado. In an interview with the BBC ahead of the election, Delgado argued that El Chapo was entitled to legal counsel and dismissed suggestions of a conflict of interest, should she be elected as a defended drug lord El Chapo - now, she's running for officeFollowing the publication of the voting tally on Tuesday, Delgado said she would refrain from commenting until her win had been officially confirmed. The judicial election was the first of its kind to be held in Mexico following a radical reform brought in by the governing Morena backers said electing judges - including Supreme Court justices - in a direct vote would make the judiciary more democratic and beholden to its critics argued that it undermined the independence of the was low at 13% - the lowest in any federal vote held in Mexico - which many observers said showed that there was little enthusiasm among Mexicans for choosing judges President Claudia Sheinbaum said the election had been a resounding success.
