Pedro Flores, twin brother of Margarito Flores, who together have made deals with the government for sentence leniency in exchange for testimony in high profile drug trafficking cases, says the government has reneged on a promise of further sentence reduction in exchange for testimony in the el Chapo case.
Chapo was sentenced to life without plus 30 years and is incarcerated in Florence Colorado Supermax.
“were assured by Special Prosecutor AUSA Adam Fels, acting as co-counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with the El Chapo Guzman case, replied to the inquiry: “I feel you deserve to get out. I am going to make sure a sentence modification gets filed.” The statement from Assistance United States Attorney Adam Fels, reassured the defendant and led him to providing trial testimony, at great peril to his life and the lives of his family, in the trial of El Chapo Guzman. Where eventually El Chapo Guzman would be found guilty in party to the testimony defendant provided for the government’s case in the chief. After the conviction of El Chapo Guzman , sometime in April 2019, the Eastern District of New York informed the Northern District of Illinois of its intention of filing a Rule 35(b) Motion on behalf of the Flores brothers, for the substantial assistance provided in the prosecution of El Chapo Guzman. On May 24, 2019, counsel for both Pedro and Margarito Flores, had a meeting with the Untied Staes Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Illinois, to discuss the Rule 35(b) Motion recommended by the Eastern District of New York. Counsel(s) were informed that it was the decision of the United States Attorney John Lausch of the Northern District of Illinois, that NO Rule 35(b) Motion was going to be filed on behalf of the Flores brothers, not withstanding the good faith and now legally binding agreement made to defendant and counsel from representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, during the following his substantial assistance and cooperative efforts in the El Chapo Case.”
“In this case, Flores testified truthfully at trial on direct examination that he was motivated to testify because he hoped to receive some sort of additional reduction of the remaining two years of his prison sentence but that no one had promised him that he would receive a reduction. As in Alston, his false allegation that the government had promised him Rule 35 motion cannot support a Brady claim because the allegation was made for the first time after the trial. Moreover, Flores’ credibility was thoroughly explored both on direct and cross-examination. The jury learned, among other things, that Flores was engaging in drug deals and arranging for the collection of drug debts even after he began cooperating with the government, that he had impregnated his wife while in DEA custody, and that he had lied to the federal government. Flores’ post-conviction false allegation of a promised Rule 35 motion this would provide only cumulative impeachment.”
Click on hyperlink to read full sized documents on Scribd