United States v. Nizar Trabelsi
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 763
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national, was convicted in Belgium (sentenced to 10 years) for offenses including an attempted bombing of a Belgian military base and membership in an illegal militia.
- While serving that sentence, a U.S. grand jury indicted Trabelsi on multiple terrorism-related counts, including conspiracies to kill U.S. nationals abroad, use WMDs, and providing material support to al Qaeda.
- The U.S. requested extradition; Belgian courts reviewed and the Belgian Minister of Justice granted extradition, applying an "offense-based" test and rejecting a facts/conduct-based (non bis in idem) bar.
- Trabelsi was extradited to the U.S. and moved in district court to dismiss the indictment, arguing Article 5 of the U.S.–Belgium Extradition Treaty barred prosecution because Belgium had already prosecuted him for the same offense(s).
- The district court denied dismissal after applying an elements-based (Blockburger-style) analysis; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding it had jurisdiction and that U.S. courts must defer to the extraditing country’s reasoned offense-based determination absent strong rebuttal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trabelsi) | Defendant's Argument (U.S./Belgium) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of treaty-based prior-prosecution claim | Court lacks jurisdiction absent final judgment; but appeal fits Abney collateral-order exception | Court has jurisdiction because Abney covers pretrial dismissal orders for prior-prosecution claims | Court: Jurisdiction exists under the collateral-order exception (Abney logic applied) |
| Whether U.S. courts can review a requested-state's extradition decision | Belgium’s grant should be reviewed de novo; no deference to Belgium’s legal standard | U.S. courts may review but must defer to the extraditing country’s reasoned decision under the treaty | Court: Reviewable but highly deferential; presumption that Belgium applied Treaty correctly |
| Proper interpretive test for Article 5’s prior-prosecution bar ("offense" language) | Treaty requires a conduct/fact-based (non bis in idem) comparison | Treaty uses "offense," so an offense/elements-based approach governs; Belgium used offense-based test | Court: Treaty text and history support an offense-based approach; Blockburger not mandated but not required either |
| Whether extradition violated Article 5 (same offense) so indictment must be dismissed | The U.S. counts are the same as Belgian convictions (barred) | Belgian authorities compared offenses, found them different; presumption of correctness unrebutted | Court: Affirmed denial of dismissal; Belgium reasonably concluded offenses differ; Trabelsi failed to rebut presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (defines elements/same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (pretrial denials of double-jeopardy claims are appealable under the collateral-order doctrine)
- Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309 (discusses specialty and finality of extradition determinations by requested state)
- Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (treaties as law of the land and limits on judicial review of extradition-related questions)
- United States v. Campbell, 300 F.3d 202 (2d Cir.) (presumption that extraditing country’s grant implies it found offenses extraditable; deference doctrine)
- Casey v. Department of State, 980 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir.) (pre-extradition challenges implicate comity; courts should defer to foreign proceedings)
- United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (conspiracy and substantive offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (adopted Blockburger as the governing double-jeopardy test)
- Zhenli Ye Gon v. Holt, 774 F.3d 207 (4th Cir.) (discusses same-offense vs. same-facts and prior-prosecution questions)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (context on interpretation of material-support statutes)