Faced with the insurgent movement in New Spain, the authorities took care to dictate a series of measures to maintain the monarchical order and guarantee fidelity to Fernando VII; among these, the Security and Requisition Boards were established with broad jurisdiction to judge and punish the disloyal who acted against the sovereign's rights. These boards were established within a jurisprudential order, where the judge, making use of judicial discretion, determined the offender and his punishment. In this context, it is interesting to analyze, from the case of Zacatecas, how the members of the Security Board, on the one hand, responded to the accusations of infidelity and, on the other hand, conceived the traitor and the punishment that would be applied to him. The resolve these questions, the cases against the infidels are recovered to show the weight that judicial discretion had at the time of acting and sentencing, even in felony treason.Ante el movimiento insurgente en la Nueva España, las autoridades se ocuparon de dictar una serie de medidas para mantener el orden monárquico y garantizar la fidelidad a Fernando VII; entre estas se instauraron las Juntas de Seguridad y Requisición con amplia jurisdicción para juzgar y castigar a los desleales que actuaban contra los derechos del soberano. Dichas juntas se establecieron dentro de un orden jurisprudencial, donde el juez, haciendo uso del arbitrio judicial, significaba al infidente y su castigo. En este contexto interesa analizar, desde el caso de Zacatecas, cómo los integrantes de la Junta de Seguridad, por un lado, respondieron a las denuncias por infidencia y, por otro, concibieron al traidor y el castigo que se le aplicaría. Para resolver estos cuestionamientos se recuperan las causas contra los infidentes para mostrar el peso que tenía el arbitrio judicial a la hora actuar y dar sentencia, aun en los delitos de felonía.