793 F.3d 533
6th Cir.2015Background
- In 2005 two men were shot to death in Santa María Natividad, Oaxaca; two witnesses identified Avelino Cruz Martinez as the shooter.
- Mexican authorities issued an arrest warrant on February 24, 2006; Martinez had by then returned to live openly in the U.S. and remained there for years.
- Mexico did not pursue extradition for many years; a U.S. consular inquiry occurred in 2009; Mexico invoked the treaty "urgency" clause in 2012 and submitted a formal extradition packet in 2013.
- Martinez was arrested in the U.S. in June 2013; a magistrate certified extraditability in January 2014; Martinez filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging certification.
- Martinez raised four claims: (1) Article 7’s lapse-of-time bars extradition because U.S. statute of limitations has run; (2) Article 7 incorporates the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right; (3) Brady/Demjanjuk disclosure violation for withheld 2009 consular records; (4) procedural due process violation from lack of prompt review of provisional arrest under Article 11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S. statute of limitations bars extradition under Article 7 | Martinez: U.S. 5‑year limitations for second‑degree murder has run | Government: analogize to first‑degree murder (no limit) or tolling applies | Writ denied on this ground — court assumes §3282 could apply but holds Mexican arrest warrant tolled U.S. limitations (treating warrant like an indictment) |
| Whether Article 7 incorporates the Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial right | Martinez: "lapse of time" includes constitutional speedy‑trial protections, so excessive post‑accusation delay bars extradition | Government: "lapse of time" refers to statutory limitations only; speedy‑trial is not a time‑bar that fits Article 7 | Majority holds Article 7 includes Speedy Trial Clause; remands for Barker analysis of delay, blame, assertion, prejudice |
| Whether government violated Brady by withholding 2009 consular communications | Martinez: withheld U.S. records are Brady‑material to his speedy‑trial defense | Government: declined disclosure; district court relied on view that speedy‑trial did not apply | Court finds Brady obligations apply in extradition (per Demjanjuk); orders disclosure process/remand to determine materiality (in camera review possible) |
| Whether denial of prompt review of provisional arrest (Article 11 urgency) violated due process | Martinez: he was not given timely judicial review of the asserted urgency | Government: Mexico provided full packet within sixty days; continuing detention is now authorized under Article 10 | Claim is moot because formal request arrived timely and detention remains authorized; no live controversy and no reasonable expectation of repetition |
Key Cases Cited
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial framework; presumption of prejudice after prolonged, unjustified delay)
- Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993) (Brady applies to extradition and denaturalization proceedings)
- Sainez v. Venables, 588 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2009) (Mexican arrest warrant treated as equivalent to U.S. indictment for tolling limitations in extradition context)
- Yapp v. Reno, 26 F.3d 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding "lapse of time" in extradition treaty refers to statutes of limitations, rejecting speedy‑trial incorporation)
- Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276 (1933) (treaty interpretation principle favoring liberal construction of individual rights conferred by treaties)
- Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5 (1936) (judicial role in reviewing extradition under treaty terms)