In the trial of Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal Barrios, the prosecution submitted a document with instructions to the jury detailing the four main charges against the defendant and explaining the legal elements needed to prove each one.
Before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the government states that the charges against Pollo Carvajal are conspiracy to commit narcoterrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns or destructive devices in relation to drug offenses, and conspiracy to possess weaponry in connection with drug crimes.
The prosecutors reference key definitions, as well as the concept of conspiracy and complicity, addressing issues such as witness credibility and the use of evidence obtained through searches and recordings. They also instruct the jury on matters like the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.
The Government’s Requests: The Charges
Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal Barrios is charged with four counts of narcoterrorism
On June 3, 2025, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, through his assistant prosecutors, Nicholas S. Bradley, Kaylan E. Lasky, and Kevin T. Sullivan, presented before the court pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to instruct the jury members on the key points of the charges presented and the conduct of the trial.
The government states that the defendant, Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, is formally accused but warns that the accusations do not prove the defendant’s guilt. “It does not create any presumption nor allow for inferring his guilt.”
A summary of the alleged crimes is presented, which states that the first charge accuses the defendant of conspiring to distribute or possess with intent to distribute cocaine, knowingly or with the intention of providing something of pecuniary value to a terrorist organization, specifically the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
“The first charge alleges that, from at least 1999 or around that time, until 2014 inclusive, the defendant participated in a conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, knowingly or intending to provide, directly or indirectly, something of pecuniary value to the FARC, knowing that the FARC was engaged or had engaged in terrorism or terrorist activities.”
The second charge accuses the defendant of conspiring to violate U.S. narcotics laws by entering into an agreement to participate in one or more of the following behaviors:
importing cocaine into the United States;
manufacturing or distributing cocaine, knowing or intending that it would be imported into the United States; and
possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it, or manufacturing or distributing cocaine on board a registered aircraft in the United States.
The third charge accuses the defendant of using or carrying machine guns or destructive devices or being complicit in the use or carrying of machine guns or destructive devices, during and in relation to the drug trafficking offenses charged in charges one and two.
The fourth charge accuses the defendant of conspiring to use and carry machine guns or destructive devices in relation to, and for possessing machine guns or destructive devices to promote, the drug trafficking offenses charged in charges one and two.
The defendant has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent of all charges. The jury must consider each charge separately and determine if the Government has met its burden of proof regarding that charge. They explain that, to convict the defendant of a charge, it must be established that the Government proved all elements of that specific charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Elements of Conspiracy
The prosecutors from the Southern District of New York provide the jury with precise definitions of relevant legal terms for each charge, such as “Controlled Substance”, “Distribute”, “Possession with Intent to Distribute”, “Manufacture”, “Import”, “Use”, “Carrying”, “Possession”, “Aid and Abet”, “Machine Gun”, and “Destructive Device”.
They also explain the elements of conspiracy and in this regard indicate that charges 1, 2, and 4 are based on conspiracy theory.
The instructions highlight the two fundamental elements of a conspiracy:
the existence of a conspiracy and
the conscious and intentional association of the defendant with it.
They state that the key elements are the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant’s participation, plus the intention to provide something of pecuniary value to a terrorist organization (FARC) in exchange for drug-related activities.
It is stipulated that the FARC was publicly designated as a terrorist organization during the accused period.
“For the purpose of the conspiracy charged in count one, the government must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the following jurisdictional requirements has been met: first, that after the required conduct for the crime occurs, a criminal is taken or found in the United States… second, that the prohibited drug activity or the terrorist crime violates U.S. criminal law; or third, that the crime, the prohibited drug activity or the terrorist crime occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.”
Key Elements of Narcoterrorism
Regarding the charge of narcoterrorism, the government instructs the jury that there are specific jurisdictional requirements that the prosecution must prove, such as:
the presence of the defendant in the United States after the criminal conduct,
the violation of U.S. criminal laws or the affecting of interstate or foreign commerce.
The government emphasizes that the acts and reasonably foreseeable statements of any member of the conspiracy, made in the context of the common purpose, are considered acts and statements of all members of the conspiracy, holding them accountable for such acts or statements, even without their presence or knowledge.
Key Elements of Conspiracy to Import Cocaine
The conspiracy may be based on one or more of the listed objectives, but the jury must be unanimous regarding which objective(s) have been proven.
“To ‘import’ a substance means to bring or transport a substance to the United States from somewhere outside the United States,” warns the document.
It adds that it is not necessary to prove that the defendant or co-conspirator actually transported or successfully brought the controlled substance to the United States.
Key Elements of Firearm Offenses Related to Drug Trafficking
Charge Three focuses on the use, carrying, or possession of firearms, including machine guns and destructive devices, while emphasizing phrases like “during and in relation to” or “in furtherance of” which amounts to “in support of” the drug trafficking offenses of Counts One or Two, as well as aiding and abetting such acts.
Charge Four accuses a conspiracy to commit the acts described in Charge Three.
Definitions of “Use”, “Carrying”, and “Possession” are provided in the context of these charges. “Use” requires “active employment”. “Carrying” implies having control and availability. “Possession in support” requires that the possession “advances or promotes the crime”.
The “Aiding and Abetting” theory allows convicting the defendant if he intentionally assisted another in committing the crime, even if he did not directly commit it. It also includes the possibility of being found guilty if he intentionally caused another to commit the act or if he actively participated in the drug trafficking crime with prior knowledge that another participant would use or carry a firearm in relation to it.
In the section on “Requested Additional Charges,” the prosecution addresses a series of instructions for the jury on how to evaluate evidence and witness credibility, including testimonies from law enforcement officials. They caution that witnesses are not being judged and mention cooperating witnesses; the use of evidence obtained through search and recordings; and expert testimonies. Fact stipulations and witness testimony are also discussed.
The government emphasizes the defendant’s right not to testify and the prohibition against inferring guilt from his silence.
Evaluation of Testimonies and Evidence
The government’s document highlights that the testimonies of law enforcement officials must be evaluated as those of any other witness.
The responsibility for acts and statements of co-conspirators highlights the collective nature of a conspiracy: “The acts or reasonably foreseeable statements of any member of the conspiracy, committed to promote the common purpose of the conspiracy, are considered, by law, the acts or statements of all members of the conspiracy, and all members are responsible for such acts or statements.”
The jury is also warned that inferences must be based solely on the evidence presented; Spanish testimonies must be accepted as translated by the certified court interpreter; stipulations of testimony and fact must be accepted as true regarding the fact of the statement or its truthfulness, but the jury determines their weight.
Regarding the testimony of cooperating witnesses, it must be evaluated with caution, considering potential interests in the case outcome. It is emphasized that the jury should not draw conclusions about the defendant’s guilt based on the fact that a witness pleaded guilty to similar charges.
They indicate that evidence obtained through searches and recordings was legally admitted and must be fully considered by the jury.
Evidence of other errors or acts of the defendant should only be considered for limited purposes, such as proof of knowledge or intent, or if the similar acts and the charged acts were part of a common plan, not to prove bad character or propensity to commit crimes.
Rights of the Accused
The prosecution refers to the jury that “a defendant in a criminal case has no duty to testify or present any evidence (…) The defendant is never obliged to prove his innocence.”
In this regard, it points out that the jury “must not give any importance to the fact that the defendant did not testify. They cannot infer anything negative against him for not testifying, and they cannot consider it against him in any way during their deliberations in the jury room.”
It emphasizes that evidence of good character may create reasonable doubt, but does not justify or excuse the crime if guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also notes that false exculpatory statements made by the defendant may —but not necessarily— be used to infer consciousness of guilt, but are not sufficient by themselves to convict.
Finally, the government warns the jury that the verdict must be based solely on the evidence and not on bias based on race, religion, national origin, sex, or age.