By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the first criminal trial stemming from a Chicago-area immigration crackdown, Juan Espinoza Martinez was found not guilty of murder-for-hire charges related to Snapchat messages offering a bounty for a Border Patrol leader. The government presented Snapchat messages from Espinoza Martinez, including one offering $10,000 to “take him down,” yet the defense argued the messages were neighborhood gossip and that the government lacked sufficient evidence. The case was part of a larger crackdown, and the verdict followed a trial that raised questions about the credibility of the Department of Homeland Security’s narratives surrounding the immigration operations.
Read the original article here
Jury finds Chicago man not guilty of circulating $10K bounty on life of top Border Patrol leader Bovino, and it seems this case has really struck a nerve, hasn’t it? The core of the matter centers around a Snapchat conversation, which is a pretty flimsy foundation to build a case, in my opinion. We’re talking about alleged messages exchanged between the defendant, Espinoza Martinez, his brother, and a friend, who also happened to be a government informant. The damning message? Something along the lines of “10k if u take him down,” accompanied by a picture of Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol official.
I’m guessing the jury, like many of us, probably approached this case with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially given the current climate. There’s a lot of distrust towards figures like those in the Trump administration, ICE, and DHS. This distrust, perhaps fueled by a sense of frustration with the status quo, appears to be reflected in the outcome. It’s almost like jurors are leaning towards what’s being described as “jury nullification,” where they find someone not guilty, even if the evidence technically suggests otherwise, simply because they don’t agree with the principles or the players involved.
Now, the government’s case looked shaky from the start, especially when they were attempting to link the defendant to the Latin Kings gang, but that was squashed by the judge. And then, there’s the government informant, Adrian Jimenez. Defense attorney Dena Singer managed to pick apart his testimony, adding more suspicion. Considering the case was largely built on the word of a snitch, it’s not surprising the jury didn’t buy it. The whole thing sounds like it was a set-up from the beginning, and frankly, a lot of people would find it hard to believe someone would actually go through with killing someone for that little amount of money.
The fact that the prosecution pushed forward with this case in the first place raises questions. Maybe it was just to get headlines, to paint a picture of a “hard line” on things, even if the case was weak. I mean, the media could run headlines, “Man charged with putting bounty on ICE leader,” and that’s a very different picture than the one the jury saw, which was a ridiculous and somewhat flimsy case. It’s important to remember that this wasn’t some deeply laid plot; it was a dumb joke sent to a friend.
The defense really highlighted the ridiculousness of the situation, especially the fact that the alleged recipient of the message was a guy who’s likely incapable of carrying out the act. If you dig a little deeper, you see that the whole thing was about a poorly worded text. The absence of serious intent, any real plans or any real evidence is what likely led to the not-guilty verdict.
It also sounds like the government is lying more often than not these days. The article made some good points about how this administration and DHS are constantly flouting court rulings, and judges are getting increasingly harsh with them. This level of distrust is not just limited to this case, but seems to be a widespread sentiment, and it would be really hard to convince any jury of something.
In the end, this case seems to highlight the power of juries. It is a vital check on power, a testament to the importance of the justice system. The “founders” safety net of a trial by one’s peers. And that’s a good thing, because it encourages the government to make a more honest and factually sound case.