Respondent asserts that Soto lost an eye as a result of the torture used by Mexico to extract his statement[39]. 2d 61 (1970). Id. Equihua had been close to a witness in the drug-related cases of Alfredo Hodoyan and Emilio Valdez Mainero, which were due to be heard in San Diego courts. It is also alleged that Respondent was in charge of cocaine and marijuana shipments for the AFO and as a leading member of the organization, was responsible for assigning code names to the other members. [17] Article 9(1) provides in pertinent part, "the executive authority of the requested party shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it is deemed proper to do so". Cruz describes his mistreatment and torture at the hands of the Mexican authorities. (quoting Sindona v. Grant, 619 F.2d 167, 174 (2d Cir.1980)). The scope of this proceeding is narrow and is limited to the existence of probable cause and the evidence, received by virtue of the Treaty provisions and applicable law. As indicated previously, the extradition hearing is not a trial, nor a criminal proceeding providing respondent with rights available in a criminal trial at common law. 30), he requests discovery regarding the statement by Miranda. No precise authority is offered in regard to this premise. En 1995, su reinado lleg a su fin. Cruz testified based upon his personal acquaintance with the individuals named in the statement, and his participation in various events and circumstances, as well as conversations, with the individuals involved. Ultimately, Article 9 of the Treaty invests the "executive authority" with the final discretion.[17]. In the proceeding before this Court, the Republic of Mexico (hereafter Mexico), through the United States government, seeks the extradition of United States citizen, EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO, alleged to have committed crimes in Mexico. 3184, et seq., the United States issued a provisional arrest warrant for the Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on September 30, 1996. [33] As such, it is argued that the statements were not credible, nor should they support extradition in this case. [42] See RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF EXTRADITION (Docket No. Martinez told Cruz that he would receive some money if Cruz would hold the 38 Super and the 9mm guns that they had used to kill Gallardo and Sanchez. Additional documentation[4] (specifically related to the first degree murder and carrying a firearm exclusive to the Army, Navy and Air Force) were submitted by diplomatic note No. *1209 *1210 *1211 *1212 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michel Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Ricardo Valdez. No. 1462, 1464 (S.D.Tex. As to Soto, his three statements to the Mexican authorities, two on September 27, 1996 and one on September 30, 1996, respectively, do not reference any injury. Mr. Vasquez testified based upon his acquaintance and interaction with Respondent and his involvement in the events he describes. As to item 7, the sufficiency of the evidence, Respondent contends that the probable cause element has not been met and, therefore, there is no justification for his apprehension and commitment for extradition to Mexico. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION RE: DETAINEE'S RESPONSE TO EXTRADITION REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR RELEASE, p. 55, lines 17, et seq., Docket No. [6] The Court also directed the United States to request from Mexico, a signed statement of Seargent Ruiz and evidence of all dates of arrest after September 1, 1996 of witnesses Soto, Alejandro Hodoyan, Francisco Cabrera Castro and Gerardo Cruz Pacheco.[7]. For this reason, Respondent's challenge in this regard is denied. Otros de los jvenes reclutados tambin fueron personificados en Narcos Mxico 3, por ejemplo Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, quien conoci a Ramn Arellano en una . In making this ruling, the Court of Appeals stated: After making its holding, the Gallina court did state that a case might occur in which the extraditee "would be subject to procedures or punishments so antipathetic to a federal court's sense of decency as to require reexamination of the [the general principle upholding extradition.]" In the proceeding before this Court, the Republic of Mexico (hereafter Mexico), through the United States government, seeks the extradition of United States citizen, EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO, alleged to have committed crimes in Mexico. The Treaty between the United States and Mexico calls for probable cause to be measured by the standards established in the requesting country. [37] These statements were taken in open Court, at the time that Cruz and Soto were arraigned on charges filed against them by the Republic of Mexico and based upon the statements given to the public prosecutor. Criminal activity is defined as those who agree to or plan the crime, commit the crime themselves and/or commit the crime jointly with others (Article 13, Sections 1 through 3, inclusive). As set forth in Footnote 26, the rights normally available in a criminal trial are not available in this proceeding. Finally, the United States submits evidence in the form of statements attributed to Respondent related to the disappearance and murder of Alejandro by the AFO and the organizations efforts to effect a recantation of Alejandro's November 30, 1996 deposition. In the absence of legal authority to support the court's ability to find the treaty invalid for changed circumstances or that the purpose and intent of the parties in this instance is materially different, Respondent's position in this regard is rejected. Since the evidence was undisputed it is not detailed extensively herein. Finally, Valdez offers that Cruz, Soto, Alejandro and Vasquez[32] were subjected to torture, *1222 and were under duress at the time of the "alleged" statements. He states that the reason that Gallardo was murdered was because he had allowed "Chapo Guzman" into the territory of Tijuana to deal drugs and push out Benjamin Arellano Felix. [41] All of these individuals are described as "prisoners" in the statement. Background. On September 30, 1996, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of *292 California, acting on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, presented to the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, a complaint and a formal extradition request for Emilio Valdez Mainero (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Extraditee"). View phone numbers, addresses, public records, background check reports and possible arrest records for Emilio Valdez. 1989), cert. Miranda declared that Valdez and Martinez committed the murder of Gallardo. Quines eran los narcojuniors reales de Tijuana? These statements do not add a great deal to Mexico's case regarding this Respondent. While the motion was denied, the Court did find good cause to order the production of further evidence described by the United States in its responsive papers as becoming available since the June 30, 1997 extradition hearing. Connect with the definitive source for global and local news. There is no evidence, however, in this regard. Respondent's objections to this evidence and his explanatory evidence have already been addressed, and rejected. The videotapes clearly demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor. Under that rule, "an extraditing court will generally not inquire into the procedures or treatment which await a surrendered fugitive in the requesting country." 448 (1901). Finally, the Respondent is accused by Mexico of criminal association (conspiracy) in violation of Mexican law. QUIERE LIBERTAD, DEBE VIDAS. No case authority is offered in this regard. Through observation and discussion, he became privy to the knowledge set forth. Respondent had indicated that a recantation by Vasquez would be filed, but no such document has been offered in evidence in this case. Defense counsel was provided for Mr. Cruz Vasquez identifies himself as a member of the AFO and states that in March, 1996, he had several visitors to his home, including Respondent Valdez, Martinez, and co-extraditee Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios. October 21, 1996. Under Article 10 of the Treaty, the request for extradition is required to contain the description of the offense for which extradition is requested and shall be accompanied by: (1) A statement of the facts of the case; (2) The text of the legal provisions describing the essential elements of the offense; (3) The text of the legal provisions describing the punishment for the offense; (4) The text of the legal provisions relating to the time limit on the prosecution of the offense; and. Valdez "hires young assassins who belong to Tijuana's upper class," according to the statement by Francisco Molina Ruiz, commissioner of Mexico's National Institute for the Combat of . The statements attributed to Respondent Valdez from the wiretape surveillance,[35] result in a finding that Alejandro's March 3, 1997 declaration and personal notes were contrived and are unreliable. [24] A Volkswagen was seen leaving the scene by eyewitness Juan Manual de la Cruz. Cruising the freeway between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, like any suburban commuter, Emilio Valdez Mainero seemed an unlikely assassin. 5.1 is denied. The United States has also offered statements from interviews between Alejandro and federal agents in February of 1997 which are asserted to corroborate Alejandro's knowledge of the AFO and his willingness to cooperate. Elias v. Ramirez,215 U.S. 398, 30 S. Ct. 131, 54 L. Ed. Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 789, 790 (9th Cir.1986). Mr. Valdez became a top operative in the organization, arranging drug shipments and assassinations, the Mexican and American police have charged in court. The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. The various activities included a number of incidents of transportation of illegal drugs and homicide. [25] Miranda testified based upon his acquaintance with the individuals described in his statement, his personal presence at various of the events and circumstances described and conversations with the involved individuals. [30] Respondent's Exhibits H, I and J, respectively, docket No. In Zanazanian, the Ninth Circuit held that police reports which summarize the statements of witnesses are competent evidence, *1227 even though the same documents would be inadmissible hearsay in other contexts. Extradition of Kraiselburd, 786 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.1986). The Court finds that the videotapes do show a cooperating witness. For the reasons set forth in footnote 32 an extended analysis of the recantation is not set forth, nor is the recantation viewed any differently than those of Cruz and Soto. The contours of the extradition proceeding were shaped by the Treaty and statute. As more clearly established by case law, the Court should not usurp the constitutional authority of the State Department in this respect. In fact, they are of relatively little evidentiary value herein and as such, an extended analysis is unnecessary. Emilio Valdez Mainero seemed an appropriately upper-tier husband, but he too allegedly found employment in the Arellano Felix organization, recruiting 'young assassins who belong to Tijuana's . Los narcojuniors . [15] The Treaty, in Article 11, and 18 U.S.C. The document is not authenticated. Soto also explains the details of the alleged abuse visited upon him. 1983). C. Fausto Soto Miller, aka "Chef" In his September 27, 1996[27] declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Fausto Soto Miller, "Chef," (hereinafter *1221 "Soto") stated that he was aware of the personal problems between Valdez and Gallardo, arising out of a threat with a firearm against Gabriel Valdez made by Gallardo. Respondent's discovery request in this regard is denied. According to testimony given to Mexican authorities, the Arellanos _ led by brothers Benjamin, Ramon, Javier and Francisco _ have been able to coordinate major assassinations with the aid of the attorney general of Baja California, Jose Luis Anaya Bautista. BATTAGLIA, District Judge. [40] U.S.-MEXICO DRUG WAR: Two Systems Collide, New York Times, July 22, 1997. 33. Based on the above evidence, this Court finds that there is probable cause to believe that Valdez committed the crime of criminal conspiracy as alleged in the extradition request. Id. Bruton v. United States,391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. Ejecutivo Mercantil Autr. [13] The documents themselves do not have to filed in court by the 60 day period, only received by the United States. Mr. Valdez was referred to as "El Cabezon", "C.P. ``But it only makes the laxity which we see daily _ that should be viewed with greater and greater suspicion.. Augustin also indicates that Alejandro told him that the Mexican officers intended to torture and kill Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios should he be extradited to Mexico. Nobody threatens my brother because the moron who does it, dies."[12]. Alejandro's statements are based upon his personal knowledge due to his admitted involvement in the AFO and their activities. The statement is a summary of what Alejandro described to his family and includes information related to meeting General Gutierrez Rebollo as well as contact with DEA and FBI agents who pressured him to sign a confession in exchange for removal from Mexico and protection thereafter. The proper authority for the political decision here is, of course, the Secretary of State. According to statements filed in federal court in San Diego, Ibarras assassination Sept. 14 was committed by members of the Arellano Felix drug organization and coordinated by the attorney general of Baja California. The court has jurisdiction over the Respondents if they are before the court. [4] As presented, the documentary evidence in this regard appears to supplement, not supersede, the previous filings of certified documents in support of the request for extradition. 33) which is similarly denied for the reasons stated. Finally, Respondent filed FINDINGS OF MEXICAN LAW EXPERT RODOLFO GASTELUM PEREZ RE: ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE; SYNOPSIS; AND CURRICULUM VITAE which asserted procedural, substantive and constitutional infirmities under Mexican law in the extradition request and in the arrest warrant. 25. 28). Miranda also declared that Valdez had told him he and Fabian Reyes Partida, aka "Domingo", (hereinafter Reyes) had assassinated Jesus Romero Magana because he was investigating Valdez' criminal activity. Mexican officials wanted Valdez, 32, for allegedly gunning down an aspiring boxer over a personal grudge in 1996 at a Holiday Inn in the state of Mexico. In Emami v. United States, 834 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir.1987), Emami contended that Germany had presented no competent evidence upon which the district court could make a finding of extraditability because Germany relied on facts which prosecutor Keller related in his affidavit which consisted solely of inadmissible hearsay statements made by Emami's former patients and employees. Miranda's testimony is not only generally consistent with the statements of others, but is based upon his acquaintance and involvement with the individuals described therein. 1274 (1913); Glucksman v. Henkel,221 U.S. 508, 512, 31 S. Ct. 704, 55 L. Ed. Netflix lanz la ltima temporada de Narcos: Mxico, donde adems de los personajes que ya conocemos, hay UNA sorpresa: Bad Bunny. The authority of a magistrate judge to conduct the proceedings is provided by 18 U.S.C. Under United States law, (i.e., California Penal Code 187-199) murder is unlawful and similarly defined. de Sicor 1 Acdo. Again, no more precise recantation of the specific events exists. narcoseries Netflix. [9] See ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE filed October 23, 1997 (Docket No. The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Southern District of California US Federal District Court. 1971), cert. D. Gilberto Vasquez Culebro, aka "Cachuchas" On September 30, 1996, Gilberto Vasquez Culebro (hereinafter "Vasquez") gave a statement to Jose Luis Juarez Garcia, an agent of the Mexican federal public prosecutor in Mexico City, Mexico. The "recantations" from Cruz and Soto are in the form of testimony before a judge of the First District of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the State of Mexico. [47] Alejandro's testimony also implicates his brother concerning the involvement with the AFO, which relates to the pending extradition of Alfredo Hodoyan-Palacios, 96mg1828(AJB). Recanting statements are relevant as they affect probable cause, but a showing that the prior statement is coerced and that indicia of reliability is on a subsequent recantation is the appropriate point of analysis on this issue. BATTAGLIA, United States Magistrate Judge. The respondent offers a handwritten declaration of Alejandro, dated March 3, 1997, to document his being detained, interrogated and tortured. ``Take out your AK-47, and you are going to (expletive) him right now.. As a result, the Court finds Treaty compliance in this respect and denies Respondent's request for release on this basis. 44). Opinion for Matter of Extradition of Mainero, 950 F. Supp. The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. On June 26, 1997, respondent filed a SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY[34], with an attached declaration of Augustin Hodoyan (Alejandro's brother) with Alejandro's personal notes which were used to create the March 3, 1997 declaration. Attorney Gastelum's opinions are contradictory, at best, and excludable on that basis. In this regard, statements characterized as "recantations" were offered by Cruz, Soto and Hodoyan. Por Investigaciones ZETA. In that statement, Cruz was noted to have suffered multiple burns which were attributed to an incident several days before when he was inspecting the exhaust pipe of a vehicle. In the Matter of Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. 2d 476 (1968), is also unpersuasive in this regard. Respondent's roles and activities in these regards is specifically referenced. "The rationale is that such matters are to be determined solely by the executive branch." The others in the navy blue Cutlass also left the Holiday Inn and caught up with the white Volkswagen at the village of San Mateo Atenco. Neely v. Henkel, supra. Ramn y Arturo se la pasaban en fiestas y en una de conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales. A significant portion of the mens statements were taken in Mexico by officials putting together the case against Valdez and his companion at the time of his arrest, 25-year-old Alfredo Hodoyan de Palacios. Miranda's statement was given to an officer of this Court. As earlier stated, the circumstances of Alejandro's testimony are not suggestive of torture, coercion or duress. "Chef" ("Soto") In his September 27, 1996 declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Soto recalled an incident in which Valdez, Ramon Arellano Felix and other members of his organization met at a house rented by Valdez in Mexico City. In re Petition of France for Extradition of Sauvage,819 F. Supp. 13, 22 (D.Mass.1989). Martinez instructed Contreras and Cruz to drive a navy blue Cutlass to the Holiday Inn in Toluca. One of the gang's leaders, Ramon Arellano Felix, was placed on the FBI's Most Wanted list in September. The Courts have chosen to defer questions regarding the procedures or treatment that might await an individual on extradition to the executive branch because of its exclusive power to conduct foreign affairs. 956 (1922). emilio valdez mainerospiral pattern printing in c. phillies front office salaries [2] An analysis under Parretti v. United States, 112 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir.1997) decided May 6, 1997 and amended August 29, 1997, well after the issuance of the provisional arrest warrant in this case, is unnecessary given the timely filing of the certified documents. The Supplemental Complaint charged Respondent with criminal association under Article 164, paragraph 1 and Article 13, section 2 of the Penal Code for the Federal District. Mexico also argued that the document was not certified as required by the treaty and would be presumptively inadmissable. In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. Specifically, the Court ordered the United States to file copies of videotapes of Alejandro Hodoyan's deposition; evidence including Respondent's statements regarding the circumstances surrounding the 1997 abduction of Alejandro Hodoyan and the genesis of the March 3, 1997 declaration by Alejandro Hodoyan;[5] and, all statements, recordings, transcriptions and memoranda of interviews by the assistant U.S. Attorney and federal agents of Alejandro Hodoyan.
