Genaro García Luna has not expressed the intention of becoming a cooperating witness from the authorities, although it is an option available to him.
César de Castro, lawyer for the former Secretary of Security, Found guilty of five crimes by a jury in the United States, he stated that they have not discussed that scenario, but they will, since there is no deadline for him to make that decision.
“Certainly it is an option for anyone in the case of Mr. García Luna, in fact, many of the witnesses in the trial were sentenced, testified, cooperated after being sentenced,” he said in an exclusive interview for Image Newswith Ciro Gomez Leyva.
The litigant assured that the ex-command is very optimistic about his future, despite the fact that the verdict was not to his liking. For now they will focus on how they would lower the sentencewhich would go from 20 years of imprisonment for life; It will be announced on June 27.
“You cannot appeal your conviction until you are sentenced. Here in the United States the sentence, which means that he was found guilty, is not yet final. It is final after the sentence, ”he explained.
recognized that García Luna did not testify in his own trial because that would not have changed things and they preferred that the burden of proof fall on the prosecutors in the case.
Garcia rules out being a witness… for now; They analyze how they would lower the sentence
He Former Federal Security Secretary Genaro García Luna is not interested, for the moment, in being a witness collaborator of the government of USA.
In interview for Image Newswith Ciro Gómez Leyva, the lawyer César de Castro spoke after the trial against the former secretary.
—How is Genaro García Luna?
“At first, like all of us, he went into a little shock. It’s normal in the course of a trial, and it took us a while to talk, but it’s okay. And knowing him, as I have done over the years, I know that he is very optimistic about the future.
“Okay, of course you are dissatisfied with the verdict, we all are, because we feel it was against the evidence. But he always tries to be optimistic and is working hard with our team.”
“What reason, what reason would he have to be optimistic?”
—He is optimistic in general, he wants us to focus on how we can continue in the fight, and of course we will continue in the fight. We will evaluate all our options. And we will see what is the next option to know what to do.
“Will García Luna be a cooperating witness for the United States government?”
—I suppose that the way in which I would respond to that is that there is always an opportunity to speak with the government, that is always an option for those who have information and are willing to deliver it.
“Are you going to propose it to him?”
—It’s something I’m certainly going to talk about with him, that’s an option, it’s a path you can follow, even if you’ve been sentenced after a trial. So I’m certainly going to talk to him about it, he hasn’t said he’s interested in doing it.
“So far you’re not interested, haven’t you shown any sign of being interested in becoming a cooperating witness?”
—No.
—The President of Mexico himself, President López Obrador, is encouraging him, inviting him to become a collaborating witness.
I don’t know if the President is speaking based on any information. I don’t know if he knows if Genaro García Luna has any information to deliver. So what I would say is that it certainly is an option, and it’s an option that I’ll talk to him about, that I’ve told him about and it’s something that if he wants to, he’s going to consider it.
– Was he wrong to mention López Obrador in the trial?
—First, it wasn’t my mistake, let me say it, let me clarify, I didn’t make a mistake in terms of asking the question. I think what’s important is explaining how I do my job, how our entire team did their job, and how every defense attorney in America does their job asking questions about witnesses that the government presents.
«We are in a cross-examination, the government too, must have a basis of good faith to ask a question. The question has to be relevant to something in the trial. The question I asked, which is what you’re talking about was, I had a bona fide basis for asking.
“How did I get a bona fide basis? I obtained that basis from the materials provided by the government, generally, in this case, consisting of reports or notes from previous interviews with witnesses.
“I was very surprised by the amount of attention that 30 seconds in court resulted in, as I was preparing myself for our estimates of what I was going to have the next day. At the trial itself, I don’t think it was a very big moment.”
—How did he and Genaro García Luna come to the decision so that Genaro García Luna would not testify, would not testify, would not defend himself with testimony in the New York trial? Why did they make the decision for him not to testify, for him not to testify at the trial? Why was that decision made?
—You’re right, Ciro, it’s your decision. And in our system it is only your decision and you can discuss it with us.
—But do you have a lawyer with whom you consult that decision who, surely, you asked for an opinion on that decision?
“I’m going to tell you what I told the jury. I told the jury that they didn’t need to hear it from him. This trial was about whether Genaro García Luna helped the cartels in the transfer. If you want to know what his answer to this question is, he answered it.
«When he was arrested, the government chose, they did not have to do this, the government chose to call a witness and interview Genaro García Luna when he was arrested. And they chose to list his statement as evidence.
“We are generally not allowed to do that. They listed that, number one: they asked him if he helped the cartels, and he said no. Number two: they asked him if he knew about Arturo Beltrán Leyva, and so… He told the jury, through his testimony, that, from his point of view, his statement, that he was innocent. He not only did that, but he demonstrated, because the witnesses always demonstrated it, that García Luna was an open book when he was arrested.
“He asked them: ‘what do you need, do you need my computers? Sure, you can search them, do you want to search my house? Sure, you can do that, do you want my passwords for all my devices? Yes.’ He gave them access to everything. In our system to be able to access my phone, for example, if I am arrested, they need to agree to the search, which is very rare, or seek a warrant with a judge. They did not have to do any of that, because Genaro García Luna gave them full access and they reviewed all that material and did not find a single piece of incriminating evidence.”
—At what point in the process would you stop being Genaro García Luna’s lawyer?
—The rule states that I am your lawyer until your appeals are exhausted. And it will be, unless he hires another lawyer. I have treated Genaro García Luna for three years and I agree to continue representing him but, although I am a private defender, I am honored to represent him and would be honored to represent him in his appeal, if he so desires. I have let him and his family know that I will be with them until the end. They have essentially been abandoned, and I have been with them and will continue to be with them, if they wish.
“Until the end then?”
-Until the end
“Why do you say it’s an honor to defend him?”
“First, I don’t think the evidence was enough to convict him. I don’t think he is guilty. But also because he is a very genuine person. That is why it has been an honor and a pleasure to defend him. He is extraordinarily kind, at least he has been to me. I haven’t seen any of the things the government branded it with. I am honored to represent him and to continue to represent him. And to have been designated to continue representing him.
Finally, the lawyer César de Castro made it clear that the fact that his client Genaro García Luna testified or not in the trial would not have changed things.
Source: Image News – Ciro Gómez Leyva