United States v. Kashamu
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18206
7th Cir.2011Background
- Kashamu was indicted in Chicago in 1998 for conspiracy to import/distribute heroin but remained at large.
- He surfaced in the UK in 1998, was arrested, and extradition proceedings were pursued through 2003, ending with a denial to extradite.
- In 2009 Kashamu moved to dismiss the indictment on collateral estoppel grounds based on an English magistrate's finding that he was not 'Alaji.'
- The district court denied the motion; Kashamu appeals arguing collateral estoppel should apply to the extradition ruling.
- The Seventh Circuit considers whether collateral estoppel can attach to foreign-extradition findings and, if so, what weight and governing law should apply.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court’s decision without adopting collateral estoppel against the United States in this extradition context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can collateral estoppel be applied to findings from an extradition proceeding? | Kashamu argues collateral estoppel should bind if the extradition ruling resolved an issue essential to guilt. | The government contends collateral estoppel cannot apply to extradition determinations. | Yes, collateral estoppel can apply in this context, but only under appropriate circumstances and governing a proper finality standard. |
| What law governs preclusion of foreign-extradition findings—foreign law or federal common law? | Typically foreign law governs, but the parties tacitly rely on U.S. federal common law. | The parties implicitly adopt federal common law, treating the issue as a U.S. collateral-estoppel question. | The court decides to apply federal common law to collateral estoppel in this case. |
| If collateral estoppel applies, would the English magistrate's findings have required acquittal or dismissal of charges in the U.S.? | Findings that Kashamu had a look-alike brother and that Kashamu aided Interpol would compel acquittal. | Findings would not necessarily preclude trial; the prosecution could present different evidence at trial. | Even if given collateral-estoppel effect, the magistrate's findings would not mandate acquittal or dismissal; only some findings might be supportive but not conclusive. |
| Is the denial of extradition a final order for purposes of collateral estoppel review? | A denial is not final and thus not typically reviewable for collateral estoppel. | Collateral estoppel can still apply despite non-finality in special circumstances. | The court treats the denial as subject to collateral-order doctrine review, enabling appellate consideration. |
| Should the district court have given weight to the English rule on collateral estoppel? | English rule is controlling if comity warrants it. | U.S. policy and the practicalities of extradition proceedings may warrant applying U.S. law instead. | The court declines to import English collateral-estoppel rules wholesale; applies U.S. federal law and comity considerations without adopting a strict English rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) (double-jeopardy collateral estoppel and appealability concepts under collateral order doctrine)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (foundational collateral estoppel in criminal cases)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (interlocutory appeals for official-immunity denials; collateral estoppel context)
- United States v. Patterson, 782 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986) (collateral estoppel considerations in criminal context)
- Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001) (comity and foreign judgments bearing on preclusion)
- Overseas Inns S.A. P.A. v. United States, 911 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1990) (comity and recognition of foreign adjudications)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) (comity principles in recognizing foreign judicial decisions)