United States v. Arvizu Hernandez
1:17-cr-20130
S.D. Fla.Jun 12, 2017Background
- Arvizu Hernandez is charged in SD Florida with conspiracy to distribute cocaine knowing it would be unlawfully imported and with manufacturing/distributing cocaine for unlawfully imported importation.
- Defendant moves to dismiss the Indictment claiming extradition based on a different indictment, treaty scope issues, and potential degrading penalties.
- Doctrine of specialty limits trial to offenses for which extradition was granted; Defendant argues the Honduran extradition basis does not cover all charges.
- The superseding indictment is alleged to alter the case's substance; Government argues it does not, citing Puentes and related authority that minor changes are permissible.
- The Court defers to Honduras’ determination that extradition was appropriate and applies Ker-Frisbie; manner of bringing defendant does not deprive court of power to try him.
- Court finds no basis to conclude the potential penalties (including life imprisonment or degrading punishment) render dismissal warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the specialty doctrine bar the indictment? | United States: no violation; superseding indictment does not alter substance. | Arvizu: different indictment undermines specialty. | No; not grounds for dismissal. |
| Does the extradition scope cover the charged conspiracies and drug offenses? | United States: offenses align with extradition; Honduras deemed appropriate. | Arvizu: Honduran laws cited do not mention conspiracy or drug distribution with knowledge of US importation. | Court defers to Honduras and applies Ker-Frisbie; valid extradition. |
| Are potential penalties (e.g., life imprisonment or degrading penalties) grounds for dismissal? | United States: treaty does not prohibit such penalties in this context. | Arvizu: penalties could be degrading or ignominious under treaty. | No; not warranted based on the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Puentes, 50 F.3d 1567 (11th Cir. 1995) (specialty limits on trial to extradited offenses)
- Gallo-Chamorro v. U.S., 233 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (holds additions beyond extradition indictment may be allowed if based on same facts)
- United States v. Sensi, 879 F.2d 888 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (allowing charges based on same facts as extradition request)
- United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (U.S. 1992) (Ker-Frisbie doctrine: jurisdiction independent of manner of defendant’s arrival)