It’s common knowledge that the government uses all kinds of rats to secure convictions. We don’t call them rats in court, however. They’re referred to as CIs, CS, un-indicted co-conspirators, cooperators, “individual number 1,” and the like. Many times, though, they’re referred to by their names. Indictments and 302s include their last names in all caps*, and with a cursory review of the docket, you can get an idea of what they pled to and what they may know about your guy.

The government uses all types of folks looking for an easier way out of the BOP’s spartan accommodations: from the wretched, luckless errand boy who drove someone to one deal, to the top dogs who’ve organized a transnational dope-slinging syndicate. Rationally, the government needs the kingpins, and those closest to them, when trying to collar other cartel leaders.

One natural effect of working closely with those on top of the drug game is that along the way you may see, or even do, some stuff that’s frowned upon by good citizens. Drug dealers may put their competitors – and those who have the temerity to work for them – in harm’s way. Some civilized people say “these people will eat each other” when referring to those with ambition and without scruples. Difference with some rats is that the expression becomes a literal description of what happened:

At the New York trial of Mexico’s former drug czar for cocaine trafficking in 2023, the judge issued a spicy ruling: witnesses could not be questioned about cannibalism. It was aimed at various gangsters who had worked with the deceased kingpin Arturo “The Beard” Beltrán Leyva, who engaged in human flesh-eating in santería rituals. The Beard’s lieutenant “El Grande” (The Big One), a hulking 6’7’’ ex-cop, took the stand and his blonde henchman “La Barbie” was on standby but was never called (perhaps because prosecutors decided Barbie was just too volatile).

The judge determined that these gangsters could not be asked about cannibalism because it would be “inflammatory and distracting” for the jury of middle-class New Yorkers, who were already nervous about a cartel case.

At least one defense lawyer must’ve chuckled while preparing for that argument, thinking “the government’s star rat eats people, The jury’s gotta hear this.” One vaunted prosecutor, in turn, who succeeds often in keeping some rats’ racist colorful wiretap language out of the jurors’ earshot, definitely thought “I gotta keep this out. We can’t sell this.” U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan, in siding with the government, reasoned that “even assuming cooperating witnesses lied to the Government about prior acts of cannibalism, the marginal probative value of that fact is substantially outweighed by the highly inflammatory and distracting nature of the underlying conduct.”

Government’s exhibit 85C, which appears on that deliciously titled “America’s Narco Snitch System” article, is a mugshot of “El Chupeta,” who testified against El Chapo. El Chupeta confessed to jurors that he ordered 150 people killed, and he’s “known for his plastic surgery face.” His dopey face appears to be dripping in maroon, raising the question whether he was snatched by agents from the operating table, or while he was finishing his latest… snack.

Yes, the rules of evidence may yield a result that keeps the gruesome details of santero drug enforcers’ cannibalism from the eyes and ears of jurors. The rationale may be that thoughts of witnesses eating others while in furtherance of a criminal enterprise may disturb and distract jurors so much that it should be kept out, when balanced against Genaro-Garcia’s interests in showing jurors just how far those government witnesses were willing to go to further their trade, and how far they will go to stay out of a BOP cage.

Norman Mailer once proposed that judicial executions should be made public, so that constituents may see what they’ve been asking for. That’s a fair point, and so is an argument that jurors get to see how – pardon the expression – the federal prosecutorial sausage is made. But attempts at humor aside, there’s no need to get all that savage so to consider everything else that’s kept out of juror’s purview: the defense can’t tell them what sentences accompany a one-word verdict, and “equal subpoena power” paints a picture of equal access to witnesses when only one side can immunize. In fairness, they may get to see that super stoolies get paid thousands to rat, but if defendants pay a dime for anyone’s testimony, God help them.

In the end, will those “middle-class New Yorkers” sitting in Genaro-Garcia’s judgment really get to see those people for what they are, those who they’ll be taking at their word should they vote to convict? Hell no.

And then there’s all that narco-money that’s seized by the feds every year. One could argue that said prize money should be given to those Mexican or Colombian communities that people like El Chupeta terrorized, instead of going to federal agents’ bonuses. And then there’s the question as to whether these rats are an indispensable tool for law enforcement. But that’s a conversation for another day.

*No all caps here. Like emojis, all caps are an unfailing sign of a disordered person.