In re Kashamu
769 F.3d 490
7th Cir.2014Background
- Buruji Kashamu, a Nigerian/Benin dual national, was indicted in Chicago in May 1998 for conspiracy to import and distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. § 963); he never entered the U.S. and his whereabouts were unknown at indictment.
- After the indictment, Kashamu was arrested in the U.K.; two extradition proceedings (ending January 2003) failed and he returned to Nigeria, where he remains a prominent politician and businessman.
- In 2009 Kashamu moved in the district court to dismiss the indictment based on findings in the U.K. extradition proceeding (identity issues and informant allegations); the Seventh Circuit rejected collateral-estoppel effect of the U.K. findings in a prior appeal (656 F.3d 679).
- In 2014 Kashamu sought dismissal on new grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction (never in the U.S.) and violation of the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right because the government had not sought extradition from Nigeria for ~11 years.
- The government argued Kashamu, as a foreign national abroad and not in U.S. custody, lacks constitutional rights (an argument the court treated as unnecessary to resolve) and contested both jurisdictional and speedy-trial claims.
- The Seventh Circuit denied Kashamu’s petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that dismissal was premature or unwarranted given his conduct, prior extradition efforts, and fugitive-like avoidance of U.S. proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | District court lacks jurisdiction because Kashamu never entered U.S. | Indictment remains pending; jurisdiction exists if defendant is brought within court's reach later | Court: No present jurisdiction, but indictment remains viable if Kashamu comes to U.S.; dismissal not required now |
| Speedy-trial claim | Delay (~11+ years) and lack of extradition from Nigeria violates Sixth Amendment and warrants dismissal | Claim is premature; denial is interlocutory and factual determinants of delay/harm unresolved | Court: Premature to dismiss; defendant can renew claim if brought to trial; mandamus denied |
| Effect of U.K. extradition findings | U.K. magistrate’s findings should collaterally estop U.S. prosecution | U.K. judge found only insufficiency of evidence to extradite, not innocence; collateral estoppel inapplicable | Court: Prior decision already held collateral estoppel does not entitle dismissal |
| Government duty to extradite | Government’s failure to seek extradition from Nigeria warrants dismissal | Government need only notify suspect; defendant’s choice to remain abroad forfeits speedy-trial claim; government previously sought extradition from U.K. | Court: No clear duty to pursue extradition in all cases; here government made efforts (U.K.) and defendant acted like a fugitive; dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kashamu, 656 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2011) (prior appeal rejecting collateral-estoppel effect of U.K. extradition findings)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-part balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850 (1978) (denial of dismissal on speedy-trial grounds is nonappealable interlocutory order)
- United States v. Walton, 814 F.2d 376 (7th Cir. 1987) (discussion of government obligations re: extradition of fugitives)
- United States v. Gibson, 490 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2007) (statute of limitations tolling for persons fleeing justice)
- United States v. Pacheco, 912 F.2d 297 (9th Cir. 1990) (indictment remains pending until dismissal or double jeopardy/due process bars prosecution)
- United States v. Bokhari, 757 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2014) (treating denial of speedy-trial dismissal as interlocutory; defendant can be functionally a fugitive)