Jose Munoz Santos v. Linda Thomas
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13756
9th Cir.2016Background
- Munoz (petitioner) is sought by Mexico for a 2005 kidnapping; U.S. magistrate certified extradition based largely on written confessions by co-defendants Rosas and Hurtado.
- Rosas and Hurtado gave earlier inculpatory statements authenticated by Mexican authorities; both later submitted sworn statements recanting and alleging their earlier statements were obtained by torture/coercion.
- The extradition magistrate excluded the recantations/torture allegations as impermissible “contradictory” evidence and relied on the remaining authenticated evidence to find probable cause.
- Munoz petitioned for habeas relief in district court challenging the exclusion; the district court and a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, relying in part on Barapind. The Ninth Circuit granted en banc review.
- The en banc Ninth Circuit held that evidence a statement was obtained by coercion is “explanatory,” generally admissible in extradition hearings even when contained in a recantation, and remanded for the extradition court to reconsider admissibility and probable cause.
- The court clarified the narrow scope of its holding: admitting coercion evidence does not require mini-trials, and an extradition court may still exclude such evidence if evaluating it would exceed the court’s limited role.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Munoz) | Defendant's Argument (Mexico / USA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations that co-defendants’ statements were obtained by torture are admissible in an extradition hearing | Recantations alleging coercion are explanatory of how incriminating statements were procured and thus admissible to challenge competence of prosecution evidence | Such allegations are inextricably intertwined with recantations and are “contradictory,” requiring credibility determinations beyond the extradition court’s limited role | Admissible: court held coercion allegations are explanatory and may be considered, even when in recantations |
| Whether exclusion of that evidence requires habeas relief | Excluding competent coercion evidence can render probable-cause finding unsupported and justify release | Exclusion of particular evidence does not automatically render detention unlawful under Collins; magistrate’s limited role permits excluding contradictory evidence | Remand: court ordered reconsideration and directed release unless extradition court certifies extraditability after proceedings consistent with opinion |
| Whether authenticated foreign evidence suffices without probing voluntariness | Munoz: voluntariness affects competence; authentication alone insufficient if statement procured by coercion | Dissent/Exec: 18 U.S.C. §3190 and treaty require only authentication; courts should not substitute for foreign adjudication | Majority: authentication is necessary but not dispositive; coerced statements are incompetent and may be excluded from probable-cause analysis |
| Proper remedy and scope of review on remand | Munoz: extradition court should assess admissibility of coercion evidence and, if excluded, determine whether remaining evidence suffices | Govt: maintain narrow review; if admissible evidence authenticated, certify and leave later remedies to political branches/foreign courts | Court: remanded to extradition court to evaluate coercion evidence; district to grant writ unless extradition court certifies within 90 days after proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (1922) (establishes distinction between admissible "explanatory" evidence and inadmissible "contradictory" evidence in extradition)
- Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (extradition court may exclude recantations that would require credibility determinations; careful analysis of torture claims may justify exclusion)
- Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972) (coerced confessions are excluded not merely for unreliability but because the methods offend due process)
- Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936) (use of confessions obtained by violence violates due process)
- Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (courts should defer to political branches on humanitarian evaluation of extradition consequences)
- Vo v. Benov, 447 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2006) (describes limited scope of habeas review of an extradition magistrate’s probable-cause determination)