Phoenix 24
Defense seeks medical placement instead of supermax confinement.
NEW YORK, UNITED STATES — July 2026. Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada has attempted to distinguish his conduct from that of his former Sinaloa Cartel associate Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán as he approaches sentencing in a federal court. In a memorandum submitted by attorney Frank A. Pérez, Zambada accepted that he will receive life imprisonment but requested placement in a facility capable of providing sustained medical assistance. His defense argued that his guilty plea, conduct in custody and decision not to pursue a trial should be considered when authorities determine where he will serve the sentence. The filing specifically seeks to prevent his transfer to ADX Florence, the maximum-security prison in Colorado where Guzmán is incarcerated.
Zambada pleaded guilty in August 2025 to operating a continuing criminal enterprise and participating in a racketeering conspiracy connected to decades of drug trafficking. During that proceeding, he admitted that the organization transported enormous quantities of narcotics, bribed officials and used violence against rivals. The charges carry mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, while his agreement also included a multibillion-dollar forfeiture judgment. His lawyer has maintained that the guilty plea does not form part of a cooperation agreement with United States authorities.
The defense memorandum presented Zambada as a figure who frequently attempted to resolve internal disputes through negotiation before resorting to violence. It claimed that an opportunity to mediate a conflict involving elected officials in Sinaloa was used to attract him to the meeting where he was allegedly abducted on July 25, 2024. According to his account, Joaquín Guzmán López, one of “El Chapo’s” sons, had him beaten, restrained and transported aboard a private aircraft to the United States. The circumstances surrounding that operation remain politically sensitive because Mexican authorities have repeatedly demanded greater transparency from Washington.
The claim that Zambada acted as a mediator represents an argument advanced by his legal team and does not erase the criminal activity he admitted in court. Prosecutors have identified him as a longtime leader of one of the world’s most powerful drug-trafficking organizations, responsible for moving narcotics into the United States over several decades. Zambada himself acknowledged the gravity of his conduct and expressed regret for the people harmed by the cartel’s operations. His current request concerns the conditions and location of his imprisonment rather than a reduction of the mandatory life sentence.
His attorneys contrasted that approach with the path followed by Guzmán after his extradition to the United States. “El Chapo” pleaded not guilty, underwent an 11-week trial involving dozens of witnesses and was convicted on all charges before receiving life imprisonment plus 30 years. He later appealed the verdict and repeatedly challenged the severe restrictions governing his confinement. Zambada’s defense argues that its client instead accepted responsibility, waived important appellate rights and avoided a lengthy, expensive and highly publicized criminal proceeding.
The memorandum said the guilty plea saved the United States government millions of dollars that would otherwise have been required to prepare and conduct a complex trial. It also argued that witnesses and victims will not have to testify publicly or face the security risks associated with proceedings against a senior organized-crime figure. Zambada placed himself at the mercy of the court, according to his lawyer, and has not attempted to contest every aspect of the prosecution. The defense presented these decisions as evidence that his conduct after arriving in the United States differs substantially from Guzmán’s.
Zambada’s representatives also emphasized his behavior under highly restrictive detention conditions. They said he has remained in complete isolation without interaction with other prisoners and has not filed complaints or requested modifications to his confinement. The memorandum maintains that he has complied with every institutional requirement despite his age and multiple health problems. His attorney therefore requested that the court recommend a federal institution with appropriate medical resources rather than the country’s most restrictive supermax facility.
At 76, Zambada reportedly suffers from several medical conditions that his defense believes require continuous monitoring and specialized attention. His lawyers insist that they are not requesting placement in a low-security prison or seeking privileged treatment unavailable to other inmates. Instead, they want the Bureau of Prisons to consider his physical condition when selecting an institution capable of managing an elderly prisoner serving life without parole. The final designation will ultimately depend on federal prison authorities, although the sentencing judge may issue a recommendation.
The defense further argued that treating Zambada exactly like Guzmán could discourage other organized-crime defendants from pleading guilty. Pérez said future defendants should have an incentive to accept responsibility, avoid costly trials and refrain from challenging the judicial system at every stage. Placing both men under identical conditions, despite their different legal strategies, would undermine that objective, according to the memorandum. The attorney suggested that Zambada’s case could become an example encouraging other defendants to resolve charges without prolonged litigation.
The comparison does not diminish the seriousness of the crimes admitted by either former cartel leader. Zambada’s guilty plea confirmed his participation in an organization associated with drug trafficking, corruption, murder and widespread social damage in Mexico and the United States. His defense is now attempting to separate accountability for those crimes from the administrative decision regarding his place of confinement. The court’s sentence is expected to formalize life imprisonment, while the unresolved question is whether his remaining years will be spent at ADX Florence or in a federal institution offering broader medical care.
The sentence is certain, but the place of confinement remains disputed.