Opinion
No. 2:21-MJ-00486-JPH-1
2022-03-24
In the MATTER OF the EXTRADITION OF Pedro Machuca HERNDANDEZ
Timothy John Ohms, Assistant US Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Spokane, WA, for USA. Craig Donald Webster, Federal Public Defender, Public Defenders, Federal Defenders, Yakima, WA, for Pedro Machuca Hernandez.
Timothy John Ohms, Assistant US Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Spokane, WA, for USA.
Craig Donald Webster, Federal Public Defender, Public Defenders, Federal Defenders, Yakima, WA, for Pedro Machuca Hernandez.
ORDER DENYING MACHUCA HERNANDEZ'S MOTION TO REOPEN AND GRANTING MOTION TO EXPEDITE
ECF Nos. 39, 40
JAMES P. HUTTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On Thursday, March 24, 2022, the Court conducted a hearing on Pedro Machuca Herndandez's Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 39) and related Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 40). Mr. Machuca Hernandez was represented by Assistant Federal Defender Craig Webster. Assistant United States Attorney Timothy Ohms represented the United States.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Machuca Hernandez was provisionally arrested on October 14, 2021, pursuant to an extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico on information that he had been charged with homicide. He was held in custody pending extradition proceedings following a detention hearing conducted on October 20, 2021. See ECF No. 18. At that time, the Court concluded that no special circumstances existed to overcome the strong presumption against release in international extradition matters. ECF No. 18 at 2. Mexico's formal request for extradition was received by the United States on December 10, 2021, 57 days after Mr. Machuca Hernandez's arrest. ECF No. 19 at 3.
The parties recently learned that Mexico furnished an invalidated 2013 arrest warrant as part of its extradition request. See ECF Nos. 33, 34. On March 18, 2022, the United States notified the Court of its intent to supplement the record with a valid arrest warrant issued in 2016. ECF No. 36. The Court has continued the extradition hearing to April 19, 2022 to allow the warrant to be certified through diplomatic channels and allow the parties time to supplement the record.
Mr. Machuca Hernandez asks the Court to reconsider his detention and release him based his recent medical treatment for a wrist injury, his lack of criminal history, and the failure of Mexico to provide a certified copy of a valid arrest warrant within sixty (60) days of apprehension. ECF No. 39. The United States opposes the request for release.
LEGAL STANDARD
"There is a presumption against bail in an extradition case and only ‘special circumstances’ will justify bail." Salerno v. United States , 878 F.2d 317, 317 (9th Cir. 1989). This presumption "exists due to the foreign relations interest of the United States in successfully returning persons subject to criminal prosecution to the requesting country." Matter of Extradition of Nacif–Borge , 829 F. Supp. 1210, 1214 (D. Nev. 1993) (citing Salerno , 878 F.2d at 317 ). The accused "has the burden of establishing an entitlement to bail," and must not only demonstrate that there are "special circumstances" justifying bail, but that the [accused] is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. Id. at 1214 ; see also United States v. Taitz , 130 F.R.D. 442, 444 (S.D. Cal. 1990) ("special circumstances must exist in addition to absence of risk of flight").
DISCUSSION
It is this Court's understanding that Mr. Machuca Hernandez's medical needs are being addressed. As such, neither his injury to his wrist, nor his lack of criminal history, rise to the level of special circumstances justifying bail. See Salerno , 878 F.2d at 317.
Mr. Machuca Hernandez relies upon Article 11 of the Treaty between the United States and Mexico which provides: "Provisional arrest shall be terminated if, within a period of 60 days after the apprehension of the person claimed, the executive authority of the requested Party has not received the formal request for extradition and the documents mentioned in Article 10." Treaty signed at Mexico City May 4, 1978, 31 U.S.T. 5059, 1980 WL 309106; as amended by Protocol to the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States of May 4, 1978, U.S.-Mex., Nov. 13, 1997, S. Treaty Do. 105-46 (1998). Article 10 requires the request for extradition include a "certified copy of the warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting Party." Id. Although the United States timely received the formal request for extradition, Mr. Machuca Hernandez asks this Court to enforce the terms of Article 11 and terminate his arrest because Mexico mistakenly furnished the incorrect warrant of arrest as part of its extradition request.
Mr. Machuca Hernandez has not disputed the United States' proffer that a Mexican court in fact issued a second warrant for his arrest in 2016. Moreover, he has cited no authority that would preclude Mexico from supplementing its extradition request and this Court from considering such information in deciding whether grounds exist to extradite. See 18 U.S.C. § 3190 (requiring that warrants "shall be received and admitted as evidence"). More importantly, the Treaty contains a diplomatic mechanism by which the United States may request additional evidence that may be necessary to a showing a probable cause. Article 12 anticipates there may be instances where Mexico "considers that the evidence furnished in support of the request for extradition is not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of [the] Treaty," and provides that in such cases, the requested country "shall request the presentation of the necessary evidence." 1978 Treaty, Art. 12. The Supreme Court has cautioned that the courts are to construe extradition treaties "more liberally than a criminal statute or the technical requirements of criminal procedure." Factor v. Laubenheimer , 290 U.S. 276, 298, 54 S.Ct. 191, 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933) ("Extradition treaties are to be liberally, not strictly, construed.").
Mr. Machuca Hernandez's request for release based upon what appears to be a correctible administrative mistake on the part of the Mexican authorities runs contrary to text and intent of the Treaty. The Court concludes that Mr. Machuca Hernandez has not demonstrated special circumstances exist required to justify release pending the extradition hearing.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED :
1. The Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 39) is DENIED and the Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED . Mr. Machuca Hernandez shall remain in custody pending further order of the Court.