The doctrine of speciality is a principle in international law requiring an extradited accused to be tried for only for one of the offences described in the extradition treaty, as well as the one with which he was charged at his extradition proceedings (United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 430 (1886). Frequently, defendants extradited to the U.S. seek to have government cases dismissed or limited by citing the rule of specialty.
In the United States extradition cases, the requested nation intentionally and willfully limits its jurisdiction over the defendant as soon as that person is extradited. It is possible that defendants facing extradition to other countries might be able to claim an exception for political crimes, but this is not true when United States-United Kingdom is the requested nation. Last week, in Barinas v. United States, the Second Circuit held that a defendant extradited to the United States to face charges under an asylum-nation agreement cannot claim an objection that the prosecution exceeded the scope of the extradition agreement or that it was being tried on charges different from the ones he was extradited to face.
Under that proposed framework, a court would have to consider first whether the offenses the defendant is extradited to be tried for, or the punishments that he is subjected to following his prosecution in the United States, are covered by the applicable extradition treaty. If a fugitive has taken shelter in the country where he is
The doctrine of speciality is a principle in international law requiring an extradited accused to be tried for only for one of the offences described in the extradition treaty, as well as the one with which he was charged at his extradition proceedings (United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 430 (1886). Frequently, defendants extradited to the U.S. seek to have government cases dismissed or limited by citing the rule of specialty.
In the United States extradition cases, the requested nation intentionally and willfully limits its jurisdiction over the defendant as soon as that person is extradited. It is possible that defendants facing extradition to other countries might be able to claim an exception for political crimes, but this is not true when United States-United Kingdom is the requested nation. Last week, in Barinas v. United States, the Second Circuit held that a defendant extradited to the United States to face charges under an asylum-nation agreement cannot claim an objection that the prosecution exceeded the scope of the extradition agreement or that it was being tried on charges different from the ones he was extradited to face.
Under that proposed framework, a court would have to consider first whether the offenses the defendant is extradited to be tried for, or the punishments that he is subjected to following his prosecution in the United States, are covered by the applicable extradition treaty. If a fugitive has taken shelter in the country where he is a citizen, and is therefore ineligible to extradite, then he can seek the countrys prosecution of the person for a crime committed in the United States. Selection can happen due to the desire to curry favor with the U.S. government, or due to an extradition countries lack of willingness to assist a defendant, often one who has contributed nothing of value to the home country.
If a court finds that the fugitive is extraditable, the court certifies extradition and submits the records to the secretary of state, who decides whether the fugitive should surrender. This chapter also describes some common restrictions under US extradition treaties, such as the dual-crime requirement, political-offense exception, and special circumstances doctrine. The Second Circuit denied defendant Guzmans motion to dismiss his indictment in New York on the basis of the specialty doctrine, ruling that Guzman did not have standing to claim the specialty doctrine, relying on United States v. Barinas, 865 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir.
a citizen, and is therefore ineligible to extradite, then he can seek the countrys prosecution of the person for a crime committed in the United States. Selection can happen due to the desire to curry favor with the U.S. government, or due to an extradition countries lack of willingness to assist a defendant, often one who has contributed nothing of value to the home country.
If a court finds that the fugitive is extraditable, the court certifies extradition and submits the records to the secretary of state, who decides whether the fugitive should surrender. This chapter also describes some common restrictions under US extradition treaties, such as the dual-crime requirement, political-offense exception, and special circumstances doctrine. The Second Circuit denied defendant Guzmans motion to dismiss his indictment in New York on the basis of the specialty doctrine, ruling that Guzman did not have standing to claim the specialty doctrine, relying on United States v. Barinas, 865 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir.).
Hits: 42
Leave a Reply