DOJ-OGR-00020082.jpg
747 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
747 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition from France and the United Kingdom is unenforceable and does not mitigate her flight risk. It explains that UK law requires an independent judicial review of extradition and that the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to appeal, making it an ineffective guarantee. The document cites several court cases as precedent to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk and is a valid consideration for detaining a defendant pending trial.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Namer | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000)'.
|
| Cilins | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2'.
|
| Abdullahu | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433, 443 (D.N.J. 2007)'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Refers to the U.S. Government, which understands the complexities of extradition from the United Kingdom.
|
| OIA | government agency |
The source of the Government's understanding that extradition from the United Kingdom is complex and litigated.
|
| Courts | judicial body |
Mentioned as having recognized that a lack of effective extradition means can increase a defendant's flight risk.
|
| 6th Cir. | judicial body |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, mentioned in the citation for 'United States v. Namer'.
|
| D.N.J. | judicial body |
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, mentioned in the citation for 'United States v. Abdu...
|
Timeline (3 events)
2000-12-12
The court decision in the case of United States v. Namer, cited as precedent regarding flight risk and detention.
6th Cir.
2007
The court decision in the case of United States v. Abdullahu, cited as precedent regarding the inability to extradite weighing in favor of detention.
D.N.J.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The country to which the defendant would be extradited.
|
|
|
A country where the defendant might be located, whose laws on extradition are discussed as complex and not binding by...
|
|
|
A country whose laws, along with the UK's, do not allow the defendant to irrevocably waive her right to challenge ext...
|
Key Quotes (1)
"The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of detention."Source
— Court in United States v. Abdullahu
(Quoted from a 2007 court case to support the argument that difficulty in extradition is a relevant factor for detaining a defendant pending trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00020082.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,205 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-560-AJN Document 1002 Filed 02/18/20 Page 22 of 36
to authorities in the United States would not be binding in the United Kingdom, and the defendant could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad.
Further, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of time, forum, and considerations of the individual’s mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at §§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming.
Ultimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant’s written waivers of extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a defendant’s flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433, 443 (D.N.J. 2007) (“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of detention.”). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy,
19
DOJ-OGR-00020082
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document