1:08-cr-00365
S.D.N.Y.Aug 2, 2011Background
- Bout is charged in SDNY with conspiracies to murder US nationals and U.S. officers under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332(b), 1114, 1117; indictment alleges conspiracies with a co-conspirator to kill while outside the United States.
- The court denied Bout’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and later denied his motions to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, unlawful extradition, and specialty, and to dismiss Counts I–II for lack of malice aforethought.
- Government justification for targeting Bout cited his alleged arms dealings with dictatorial regimes; Bout claimed the DoD embarrassment over his designation and calls for punitive action.
- Court rejected vindictive-prosecution challenge, finding no actual or presumptive vindictiveness supported by objective evidence; discovery and evidentiary hearing denied.
- Under the Ker–Frisbie doctrine, the extradition challenge failed; the Thai extradition record and appellate descriptions showed nothing improper, and the Court denied the motion for an extradition hearing.
- Indictment was found sufficient to allege malice aforethought implicitly; Counts I–II track the statutory elements and provide overt acts; dismissal of Counts I–II was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vindictive prosecution standard applied | Bout | Bout | Denied on vindictive-prosecution merits |
| Unlawful extradition standard | Bout | Bout | Denied; Ker–Frisbie governs |
| Doctrine of specialty applicability | Bout | Bout | Denied; full extradition context defeats specialty claim |
| Malice aforethought need in indictment | Bout | Bout | Denied; indictment sufficient to inform and cover essential elements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 126 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 1997) (quotations on preexisting standards for aiding lawful action)
- United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for discovery in vindictive-prosecution claims)
- United States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (cites rigorous standard for vindictive-prosecution showing)
- United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2003) (relevance of pleading and element sufficiency )
- United States v. Medina, 985 F. Supp. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (specialty doctrine clarification in extradition context)