EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Respondent") 1 is accused by Mexico of having been involved with or committing various crimes in violation of . The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. 12). Neely v. Henkel, supra. The Court's direction to the United States to request from Mexico a copy of the signed statement by Ruiz or other information confirming its authenticity and the actual arrest dates of the individuals involved has been met with a response that this information is not available. A concern over the authenticity of the evidence offered by way of the Ruiz declaration is also present. BATTAGLIA, United States Magistrate Judge. You can explore additional available newsletters here. The personal notes and translation were offered to corroborate the declaration and the explanatory evidence with regard to Alejandro's testimony. Ramn y Arturo se la pasaban en fiestas y en una de conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales. En septiembre de 2002, el Juzgado Cuarto de Procesos Penales Federales en el Estado de Mxico (antes Juzgado Primero de Distrito . The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence are not applicable in extradition proceedings. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. (2) A Preparatory Statement of October 13, 1996, at 7:50 p.m. made before the First District Judge of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the State of Mexico, at the Federal Center for Social Rehabilitation Number 1, in Judicial Proceedings Courtroom Number One. The contours do not lend themselves, nor invite the type of inquiry required to evaluate the humanitarian concerns of the magnitude suggested by Respondent. Chapo Guzman gave marijuana to Gallardo so that he could move it into the United States, but afterwards, Chapo Guzman sent the Federal Police after him. In contesting the accuracy of the statement of the federal prosecutor, he "rejects" the alias described to him, the reported rank in the infantry, and claims that he does not belong to the Presidential General staff but to the Presidential Guards Corps. He later was charged with several murders, including Ibarras. Cruz declared that the group told him of multiple murders that they, including Valdez, had committed because the "boss was angry", referring to Ramon Arellano Felix. The document was written by Alejandro Hodoyan Ramirez, father of both Alejandro and Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios who is also an extraditee sought by Mexico. Id. These individuals returned to Mr. Vasquez' home in April of 1996 and stated that they were running from the authorities because they had committed a homicide in Mexico City. The environment where the deposition was taken is not suggestive of any coercive circumstances. 23. [44] There are some inconsistencies in the testimony when various statements are compared, but these are not significant differences affecting this analysis. Respondent asserts that Soto lost an eye as a result of the torture used by Mexico to extract his statement[39]. Additionally, it is not the business of the United States Courts to assume responsibility for supervising the integrity of a judicial system of another sovereign nation; such an assumption would directly conflict with the principal of comity on which extradition is based. The court has jurisdiction over the Respondents if they are before the court. Mr. Soto was privy to certain events and conversations forming the basis of his knowledge. If the Court determines that all the requisite elements have been met, the findings are incorporated into a certificate of extraditability. Get free summaries of new Southern District of California US Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Case Number: 97CR2149 JM (S.D. 2d 61 (1970). R.Crim.P. Respondent's reliance upon Article 11, Paragraph 3, is misplaced. It is further argued that there is a strong motivation on behalf of the Hodoyan family to help Respondent and this would give rise to questions with regard to the trustworthiness of the document. 00:15. [38] These are the same statements offered in this matter to support the request for extradition. Family and friends will gather for his funeral services at 10:00 am on Saturday, September 7, 2019 at Lake Ridge Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 789, 790 (9th Cir.1986). This evidence is clearly contradictory and inadmissible under Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. narcoseries Netflix. 1136 (1916). [42] See RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF EXTRADITION (Docket No. Alejandro, who is the brother of extraditee Alfredo Miguel hodoyan Palacios aka "Lobo",[28] stated that his brother told him that Valdez and Martinez had participated in the murder of Gallardo at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Toluca. The evidence tying Valdez to the murder of Gallardo and Sanchez itself, given the numbers of other individuals involved, supports the criminal association charge. It is argued that Vasquez suffered similar mistreatment at the hands of the Mexican authorities and had recanted the statement attributed to him in Mexico's case in chief. [16] Habeas corpus was subsequently granted, Kin-Hong v. United States,957 F. Supp. The testimony of Miranda, taken by Assistant United States Attorney Curiel, corroborates the substance of the evidence collected at the *1228 scene and statements by non-involved witnesses. But federal prosecutors said that the information is valuable for this case and others, and that the mens credibility is proved by the way their stories fit together. The proper authority for the political decision here is, of course, the Secretary of State. In addition to being signed by extraditee's father, other family members similarly signed attesting to the authenticity and veracity of the document. [29] Clearly, Alejandro's testimony is based upon his personal knowledge derived from his acquaintance with Respondent and the other individuals named and his discussion and observations in their presence. Alejandro provides an unrestrained narrative discussion of various events and circumstances, prompted by periodic questions and all simultaneously recorded in an office on CPU's. [40] U.S.-MEXICO DRUG WAR: Two Systems Collide, New York Times, July 22, 1997. Netflix lanz la ltima temporada de Narcos: Mxico, donde adems de los personajes que ya conocemos, hay UNA sorpresa: Bad Bunny. 448 (1901). 1462, 1464 (S.D.Tex.1992). *1209 *1210 *1211 *1212 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michel Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Ricardo Valdez. An injury to the anterior upper third of his right leg is claimed to have resulted from a fight with an unknown person. Threats at the time were taken seriously, especially given the high profile murders of Tijuana's police chief in February 2000, followed shortly by the murder of Jose Patio . The magistrate's function is to determine whether there is "any" evidence establishing reasonable or probable cause. The notes are identified by Augustin Hodoyan, Alejandro's brother. Soto contends that he was arrested on September 12, 1996 and held in custody for some weeks. En una de esas fiestas fue que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue . According to the United States' submissions and consistent therewith at the hearings, Mexico seeks extradition of the Respondent for the Mexican charges identified above. Valdez told Contreras, "Wait for me here and when you see us leave the parking lot in the white Volkswagen, make a wall so that we won't be followed". Cruz identifies photographs numbered 53, 54 and 55, respectively as depictions of Respondent Valdez. Valdez "hires young assassins who belong to Tijuana's upper class," according to the statement by Francisco Molina Ruiz, commissioner of Mexico's National Institute for the Combat of . 448 (1901). 1280 (D.Mass.1997) but reversed on appeal. The recantations are little more than self-serving declarations at the time of "arraignment" on the charges based upon the statements given to the federal prosecutor. MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING BAIL PENDING EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS. Martinez instructed Contreras and Cruz to drive a navy blue Cutlass to the Holiday Inn in Toluca. 124 F.3d 1186, 1997 WL 624797 (9th Cir.). Date published: Mar 20, 2013. In Bruton, the Supreme Court held that the admission of a co-defendant confession at a joint trial violates the defendants right to confrontation if the confession also incriminates the defendant. [20] i.e. Miranda declared that Valdez and Martinez committed the murder of Gallardo. Thus, it has been held appropriate to permit evidence that tends to obliterate probable cause but not evidence which merely contradicts the same. ), affirmed as modified, 478 F.2d 894 (2d Cir.1973) the court stated in part: The magistrate judge conducting the extradition proceeding has wide latitude in admitting evidence. *1215 The sufficiency of the evidence (i.e., probable cause) will be discussed hereinafter. The credible evidence, satisfies Mexico's burden in this respect[44]. The Court denied the motion.[3]. In this regard, statements characterized as "recantations" were offered by Cruz, Soto and Hodoyan. Based on case authorities Respondent's Motion in this regard is denied. The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition. As indicated previously, the extradition hearing is not a trial, nor a criminal proceeding providing respondent with rights available in a criminal trial at common law. Mar. 3188 for a similar proposition. 896 (S.D.Cal.1993). The principle argument regarding changed circumstances is the existence of the practice of torture by Mexican authorities. Emilio Ricardo Valds Mainero, (a) "Len" o "Ricardo Gonzlez Len", detenido el 30 de septiembre de 1996, en San Diego, California, por posesin ilegal de armas y de estupefacientes. Tambin se encontraban en este grupo Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. Fue en una fiesta que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un coronel que fue miebro de los guardias presidenciales. Mexican officials wanted Valdez, 32, for allegedly gunning down an aspiring boxer over a personal grudge in 1996 at a Holiday Inn in the state of Mexico. The Ruiz statement presents conflict with regard to dates of the arrest of some of Mexico's witnesses and is asserted to corroborate the use of torture in this case as well as create conflicts in Mexico's evidence in challenging the reliability of the evidence Mexico relies upon in this proceeding. For the reasons set forth in footnote 32 an extended analysis of the recantation is not set forth, nor is the recantation viewed any differently than those of Cruz and Soto. Under 18 U.S.C. The government's request for the stay was denied sustaining Respondent's objection and request to proceed. Defense counsel was provided for Mr. Cruz. In the Matter of Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. The interests of Mexico were represented by the United States through the United States Department of Justice, by United States Attorney Alan D. Bersin and Assistant United States Attorney Gonzalo P. Curiel. Criminal activity is defined as those who agree to or plan the crime, commit the crime themselves and/or commit the crime jointly with others (Article 13, Sections 1 through 3, inclusive). The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. In the supplemental request for extradition filed in January, 1997, the facts supporting the firearms offense were related to the first degree murder of Mr. Gallardo and Mr. Sanchez alleged to have occurred on or about April 9, 1996. The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. Respondent was afforded due process with a full opportunity to review and respond to the supplemental materials. This issue was not challenged by the Respondent. Under United States law, (i.e., California Penal Code 187-199) murder is unlawful and similarly defined. Fed.R.Evid. Emilio Valdez Mainero (Valdez) and Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios (Hodoyan) were certified as extraditable to Mexico on charges of murder and criminal association with the Arellano Felix drug trafficking organization (AFO). There is no evidence to suggest that the United States no longer honors the treaty or that its purpose and intent are no longer served. *1226 In the final analysis, the Ruiz declaration is inadmissible given the lack of authenticity, certification or reliability and does little to support the recantations of Soto and Cruz. Alfredo Miguel Hodoyn Palacios, (a) "Lobo" u "88" , fue detenido el 30 de septiembre de 1996, en San Diego California. Miranda added that the motivation for assassination was that Gallardo had threatened Gabriel Valdez Mainero (Emilio Valdez Mainero's brother) with a firearm.[26]. 1136 (1916); McNamara v. Henkel,226 U.S. 520, 33 S. Ct. 146, 57 L. Ed. Mr. Valdez became a top operative in the organization, arranging drug shipments and assassinations, the Mexican and American police have charged in court. [11] More fully identified as the "Criminal Code in local matters and for all the Republic in federal matters.". The Department of States's opinion is entitled to deference. During the drive, Contreras told Cruz that, "his friends in the white Volkswagen wanted to say hello to a fellow citizen who was in Toluca to train for boxing." The Secretary of State makes the ultimate decision on whether to surrender the Respondent. [48] Evidence submitted in this regard includes the "recantations" regarding the use of torture to extract statements from the witnesses as well as the alleged abduction of Alejandro. See footnote 25. Cruz admitted his own involvement in the criminal activities of Valdez and the AFO and admitted that he was paid to assist them in killing the enemies of Ramon Arellano-Felix. [45] The thought of testimony coerced by torture is certainly abhorrent and inconsistent with tenets of our society. In response to this evidence, Valdez offers statements of Gabriel Valdez, Marci Ramirez Marin de Gonzalez and Eva Marin viuda de Pena. In Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1107 (5th Cir. [17] Article 9(1) provides in pertinent part, "the executive authority of the requested party shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it is deemed proper to do so". Id. 1996) on CaseMine. Therefore, the Court will certify the above and all documents admitted into evidence to the Secretary of State. [43] The balance of the evidence, as noted, does not lead to the conclusion that Alejandro was under duress, nor, that the November 30, 1996 deposition is unreliable. [15] The later supplementation of the record and the supplementation of Mexico's request for extradition, with additional charges, are not inconsistent with the Treaty or its provisions. In re Sindona,450 F. Supp. Entre los jvenes reclutados por el narcotrfico mexicano se encentraban Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y . Mr. Vasquez testified based upon his acquaintance and interaction with Respondent and his involvement in the events he describes. This latter evidence also results in a finding that any hostile action taken toward Alejandro and resulting in his disappearance and murder was more likely than not prompted at the direction of the AFO and not Mexico. Elias v. Ramirez,215 U.S. 398, 30 S. Ct. 131, 54 L. Ed. Entre los jvenes reclutados por el narcotrfico mexicano se encentraban Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. Where a prior statement is shown to be coerced and the indicia of reliability is on the recantation, then the subsequent statement negating the existence of probable cause is germane in an extradition proceeding. "The Secretary of State has sole discretion to refuse extradition on humanitarian grounds because of the procedures or treatment that await the surrendered fugitive." 3187 allow for the provisional arrest and detention of a fugitive in advance of the presentation of formal proofs. Respondent also argues that Alejandro was abducted in the Spring of 1997 by representatives of Mexico which corroborates Mexico's alleged use of inappropriate force and means to secure evidence in this case. [47] Alejandro's testimony also implicates his brother concerning the involvement with the AFO, which relates to the pending extradition of Alfredo Hodoyan-Palacios, 96mg1828(AJB). 28). Valdez was ordered detained following arraignment. These issues were analyzed under that premise. [31] See discussion at page 1213, line ___, et seq. 30). At approximately 9:00 p.m., the two cars arrived at the Holiday Inn, Toluca, Valdez and Martinez got out of the car. 3184, Argento v. Horn, 241 F.2d 258 (6th Cir.1957). *1220 At approximately 9:30 p.m., Cruz, who was about twenty meters away from the entrance of the Holiday Inn heard several firearms shots. 290 (S.D.Cal.1996). It is asserted that the videotapes demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor and rebut the assertion that Alejandro testified as a result of any torture or duress. Soto acknowledges having signed the statement as well as affixing his fingerprints. Buscar. As a society we cannot suspend that concept by virtue of the interest of a foreign nation in the extradition of an United States citizen, the heinous nature of the offense notwithstanding. California. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION RE: DETAINEE'S RESPONSE TO EXTRADITION REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR RELEASE, p. 55, lines 17, et seq., Docket No. The scope of this proceeding is narrow and is limited to the existence of probable cause and the evidence, received by virtue of the Treaty provisions and applicable law. United States District Court, S.D. Again, no more precise recantation of the specific events exists. [21] This evidence is certified by the principle diplomatic or counsular officer of the United States in Mexico and is received into evidence pursuant Article 10(6) of the Treaty and 18 U.S.C. denied, 405 U.S. 989, 92 S. Ct. 1251, 31 L. Ed. As a result, the Court finds Treaty compliance in this respect and denies Respondent's request for release on this basis. Argument, inference and innuendo is all that has really been presented here. As earlier stated, the circumstances of Alejandro's testimony are not suggestive of torture, coercion or duress. At the time, Emilio Valdez Mainero, a member of the Arellano Flix cartel, said in a bugged conversation with a inmate-turned-informant that he wanted to kill Curiel. It was not until October 2, 1996 that Soto described the alleged torture to the judge in Mexico. Curreri v. Vice, 77 F.2d 130, 132 (9th Cir.1935); Eain v. Wilkes, 641 F.2d 504, 510 (7th Cir.1981), cert. During the meeting, the group discussed their plans to kill enemies of their interests, including Amado Carillo, a rival drug trafficker. In the Matter of the Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. Background. Ultimately, Article 9 of the Treaty invests the "executive authority" with the final discretion.[17]. Fue en una de las celebraciones que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, el hijo de un coronel que en su momento fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales.Ms tarde contactaron . [33] On June 19, 1997, Respondent filed a REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY requesting, among other things, that the Court "order the government to turn over any other relevant information which might help the detainee explain the `evidence' lodged against him" (Docket No.

Metter Basketball Roster, Vivian Vance Last Photo, Missed Court Date For Traffic Ticket Kentucky, Fox News Political Cartoon Of The Day, Articles E