The trial of Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal Barrios, scheduled for June 23, is progressing, and in this context, the prosecution has presented its proposed questionnaire to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to evaluate potential jurors, aimed at ensuring their suitability and impartiality.
The government has requested that the court includes these proposed questions to identify any potential biases, knowledge, or circumstances that could affect a potential juror’s ability to serve fairly and impartially in this legal process.
The prosecutors cover topics such as knowledge of the charges—narcoterrorism, cocaine trafficking, and firearms—the ability to follow the judge’s instructions, impartiality, and any relationships with the parties involved or law enforcement.
The Prosecution’s Proposal
On June 3, 2025, Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, along with his assistant prosecutors, Nicholas S. Bradley, Kaylan E. Lasky, and Kevin T. Sullivan, submitted their proposal for examining potential jurors in the case against Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, also known as “El Pollo.”
Firstly, the prosecution emphasizes that this is a criminal case in which a grand jury has presented a formal indictment against Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios for alleged federal offenses. It is noted that this formal indictment is not evidence but contains the charges that the government must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The government document cites four charges against Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal Barrios, which are:
Charge One
Conspiracy to participate in narcoterrorism, which refers to drug trafficking offenses committed with the intent to provide monetary or economic value to a terrorist organization or one engaged in terrorist activities.
Charge Two
Conspiracy to import at least five kilograms of cocaine into the United States.
Charge Three
Use or possession of machine guns or destructive devices in relation to, or in support of, the drug trafficking offenses in Charges One and Two.
Charge Four
Conspiracy to use or possess machine guns or destructive devices in relation to, or in support of, the drug trafficking offenses in Charges One and Two.
The prosecution’s document seeks to determine any prior knowledge of the case or the accused, as well as opinions that might skew judgment about drug offenses, terrorism, or firearms.
It is noted that at the end of the trial, the jury will receive more detailed instructions regarding all charges, including the differences between completed crimes and conspiracy charges in the indictment.
In this sense, potential jurors are asked to reveal whether they have personal knowledge of the charges, have read or heard anything about the case, or hold firm opinions about the alleged offenses or their application, which could affect their impartiality.
General Qualifications and Logistics
The government inquiries various aspects to determine the suitability of candidates.
The intention of the proposed questions is to assess the eligibility of jurors for service, including proficiency in English, potential health issues affecting attention, availability for a four-week trial, and understanding the need to accept translations of testimonies in Spanish by a court interpreter.
Standard questions about the ability to comprehend English, hearing, vision or other medical issues, and whether they are taking medications that could affect their attention are therefore included.
The trial is expected to last approximately four weeks, and jurors are asked about their ability to serve during this time.
Ability to Render a Fair Verdict
The government’s proposal inquires about any personal opinions regarding the right to bear arms, the use of circumstantial evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof that the government holds in front of potential jurors.
Furthermore, it assesses knowledge of relevant parties and aims to identify whether jurors know or have interacted with the accused, their family members, prosecutors, support staff— which includes DEA agents—or defense attorneys.
Likewise, the questionnaire measures external factors and influences and, in this context, poses questions about familiarity with Venezuela or its government—given that the alleged conduct occurred outside the U.S. and involves Venezuelan officials—as well as relationships with law enforcement agencies. The importance of avoiding media information during the trial is emphasized.
Finally, candidates are questioned about their personal backgrounds, focusing on demographic and professional information of jurors, including family status, residency, education—especially in law—military service, occupation, reading and television habits, hobbies, and organizational affiliations.
The central purpose of the examination proposed by the prosecution is to ensure that the selected jury can render a fair verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court, without fear, favoritism, sympathy, bias and according to law.