The son of a Mexican drug cartel leader was convicted Friday of charges that he used violence, including the deadly downing of a military helicopter, to help his father operate one of the country’s largest and most dangerous narcotics trafficking organizations.

Rubén Oseguera, known as “El Menchito,” is the son of fugitive Jalisco New Generation cartel boss Nemesio Oseguera and served as the “CJNG” cartel’s second-in-command before his extradition to the U.S. in February 2020.

A federal jury in Washington, D.C., deliberated for several hours over two days before finding the younger Oseguera guilty of both counts in his indictment: conspiring to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine for U.S. importation and using a firearm in a drug conspiracy.

“El Menchito now joins the growing list of high-ranking Cartel leaders that the Justice Department has convicted in an American courtroom,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in an emailed statement. “We are grateful to our Mexican law enforcement partners for their extensive cooperation and sacrifice in holding accountable leaders of the Jalisco Cartel.”

The younger Oseguera, who was born in California and holds dual U.S.-Mexican citizenship, is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 10 by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum of 40 years in prison.

Oseguera didn’t have an obvious reaction to the jury’s verdict. One of his lawyers patted him on his shoulder before he was led out of the courtroom.

The U.S. government has offered a reward of up $10 million for information leading to the arrest of the elder Oseguera, whose alias, “El Mencho,” is a play on his first name.

Prosecutors showed jurors a rifle bearing Oseguera’s nicknames, “Menchito” and “JR,” along with the cartel’s acronym. The gun was in his possession when he was arrested.

“JR” also was etched on a belt found at the site where a Mexican military helicopter crashed after cartel members shot the aircraft down with a rocket-propelled grenade in 2015. Prosecutors said the younger Oseguera, now 34, ordered subordinates to shoot down the helicopter in Jalisco, Mexico, so that he and his father could avoid capture. At least nine people on board the helicopter were killed in the attack, according to prosecutors.

Oseguera ordered the killings of at least 100 people and frequently bragged about murders and kidnappings, according to prosecutors. They said he personally shot and killed at least two people, including a rival drug trafficker and a disobedient subordinate.

During the trial’s closing arguments Thursday, Justice Department prosecutor Kaitlin Sahni described Oseguera as “a prince, an heir to an empire.”

“But this wasn’t a fairytale,” she said. “This was the story of the defendant’s drugs, guns and murder, told to you by the people who saw it firsthand.”

Jurors heard testimony from six cooperating witnesses who tied Oseguera to drug trafficking.

Defense attorney Anthony Colombo tried to attack the witnesses’ credibility and motives, calling them “sociopaths” who told self-serving lies about his client.

A federal appeals court revived Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times on Wednesday, citing errors by a lower court judge, particularly his decision to dismiss the lawsuit while a jury was deliberating.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan wrote that Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s decision in February 2022 to dismiss the lawsuit mid-deliberations improperly intruded on the jury’s work.

It also found that the erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and an erroneous response to a question from the jury tainted the jury’s decision to rule against Palin. It declined, however, to grant Palin’s request to force Rakoff off the case on grounds he was biased against her. The 2nd Circuit said she had offered no proof.

The libel lawsuit by Palin, a onetime Republican vice presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska, centered on the newspaper’s 2017 editorial falsely linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting, which Palin asserted damaged her reputation and career.

The Times acknowledged its editorial was inaccurate but said it quickly corrected errors it called an “honest mistake” that were never meant to harm Palin.

Shane Vogt, a lawyer for Palin, said in an email that Palin was “very happy with today’s decision, which is a significant step forward in the process of holding publishers accountable for content that misleads readers and the public in general.”

“The truth deserves a level playing field, and Governor Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury that is ‘provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law,’” Vogt added, quoting in part from the 2nd Circuit ruling.

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the Times, said the decision was disappointing. “We’re confident we will prevail in a retrial,” he said in an email.

The 2nd Circuit, in a ruling written by Judge John M. Walker Jr., reversed the jury verdict, along with Rakoff’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit while jurors were deliberating.

Despite his ruling, Rakoff let jurors finish deliberating and render their verdict, which went against Palin.

The appeals court noted that Rakoff’s ruling made credibility determinations, weighed evidence, and ignored facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly find supported Palin’s case.

It also described how “push notifications” that reached the cellphones of jurors “came as an unfortunate surprise to the district judge.” The 2nd Circuit said it was not enough that the judge’s law clerk was assured by jurors that Rakoff’s ruling had not affected their deliberations.

“Given a judge’s special position of influence with a jury, we think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry,” the appeals court said.

A Detroit judge who ordered a teenager into jail clothes and handcuffs on a field trip to his courtroom will be off the bench while undergoing “necessary training,” the court’s chief judge said Thursday.

Meanwhile, the girl’s mother said Judge Kenneth King was a “big bully.”

“My daughter is hurt. She is feeling scared,” Latoreya Till told the Detroit Free Press.

She identified her daughter as Eva Goodman. The 15-year-old fell asleep in King’s court Tuesday while on a visit organized by a Detroit nonprofit.

King didn’t like it. But he said it was her attitude that led to the jail clothes, handcuffs and stern words.

“I wanted this to look and feel very real to her, even though there’s probably no real chance of me putting her in jail,” he explained to WXYZ-TV.

King has been temporarily removed from his criminal case docket and will undergo “necessary training to address the underlying issues that contributed to this incident,” said William McConico, the chief judge at 36th District Court.

The court “remains deeply committed to providing access to justice in an environment free from intimidation or disrespect. The actions of Judge King on August 13th do not reflect this commitment,” McConico said.

He said the State Court Administrative Office approved the step. King will continue to be paid. Details about the training, and how long it would last, were not disclosed.

King, who has been a judge since 2006, didn’t immediately return a phone message seeking comment. At the close of his Thursday hearings, accessible on YouTube, he made a heart shape with his hands. The judge’s work includes determining whether there’s enough evidence to send felony cases to trial at Wayne County Circuit Court.

Till said her daughter was sleepy during the Tuesday court visit because the family doesn’t have a permanent residence.

“And so, that particular night, we got in kind of late,” she told the Free Press, referring to Monday night. “And usually, when she goes to work, she’s up and planting trees or being active.”

The teen was seeing King’s court as part of a visit organized by The Greening of Detroit, an environmental group.

New York’s highest court heard arguments Tuesday in a Republican challenge of a law that allows any registered voter to cast a mail-in ballot during the early voting period.

The case, which is led by Rep. Elise Stefanik and includes other lawmakers and the Republican National Committee, is part of a widespread GOP effort to tighten voting rules after the 2020 election.

Democrats approved the mail voting expansion law last year. The Republican challenge argues that it violates voting provisions in the state Constitution.

The hourlong arguments before the New York Court of Appeals in Albany hinged on technical readings of the Constitution, specifically whether certain passages would allow for the state Legislature to expand mail voting access.

At certain points in the hearing, judges quizzed attorneys on whether a constitutional provision that says eligible voters are entitled to vote “at every election” would mean a physical polling place or simply the election in general.

Michael Y. Hawrylchak, an attorney representing the Republicans, said that provision “presupposes a physical place” for in-person voting. Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey W. Lang, who is representing the state, said the phrase “just refers to a process of selecting an office holder” and not any physical polling place.

Democrats first tried to expand mail voting through a constitutional amendment in 2021, but voters rejected the proposal after a campaign from conservatives who said it would lead to voter fraud.

Lower courts have dismissed the Republican lawsuit in decisions that said the Legislature has the constitutional authority to make rules on voting and the Constitution doesn’t require voting specifically to occur in person on election day.

It is unclear when the Court of Appeals will rule.