george cornier versus united states attorney general it is a great honor to be for you for the first time in my legal career and dreier and jonathan jordan on behalf of george cornea his wife miss corny as president i will deal with the two issues requested by the clerk specifically as to issue one may please court should this honorable court vacate the ruling of the district court's order granting reconsideration and remained with directions to adopt the magistrate marina shows report and recommendation we hold that they should article one thirteen which manages the treaty between the winnick country of greece and the united states indicate that a person should be deported or surrendered first while giving them consideration under the statute of limitations the greek statutes say that if twenty years have elapsed they can have another five years under article one thirteen and extend it five years if greek authorities and this i think is the key language can scrupulously provide with provisions of articles one fifty six and four thirty two of the greek penal code i think this is really a fascinating issue and i really enjoyed researching it because i think at the heart of this matter under chapter one fifty six it cannot be shown that greece complied scrupulously with chapters one fifty six and four thirty two chapter one fifty six relevant language is the entire case when the defendant cannot be found at his last known address and his current address is unknown the document shall be served to his spouse or his parents or his parents or his siblings then if none of these persons can be found at his place of last residence then and only then the document shall be served on the mayor this case involves a homicide from one thousand nine hundred four in two thousand and fourteen the statute of limitations ran mr cornea was taken into custody i believe in two thousand and eighteen and the w the government argues this your honor is that the reason they are entitled to the five year extension despite magistrate's nose finding is because they scrupulously complied with it we would argue they didn't there is no dispute by the parties to the facts of this case isn't  question for greek courts to resolve i mean there's it seems to me there's an issue as to whether or not extra territorial service outside the boundaries of greece on corneas mother who as i understand the record when contacted by romanian authorities could only say he left in one nine hundred ninety eight twenty years ago for miami and this is not his  home isn't there a question under greek law as to whether she could properly be served under the greek statute in a foreign country as his last known address and what are we doing as federal courts specifically don't we just have to comply with greece because they want him and i think as the animals line don't we have to comply with the extradition request because greek government officials say they have complied with greek law is that good enough on extradition for a federal court to say you're not challenging identity in probable cause clear not ok it is also a question is did the district court exceed or the magistrate judge in this instance exceed her authority  getting too deeply into the weeds on the interstices of greek law in trying to answer the question i posed to you as to what the answer is for service of criminal process under greek statutes she did not she and fact issued a twenty six page i know what she did what was that what did she exceed her authority under the extradition laws and the treaty and doing so that's what i'm wrestling  i appreciate that my answer would be no and the reason my answer would be no is short and simple courts must look at jurisdiction issues and resolve statute of limitations in black or white matters it's clear on its face greeted gre comply and let me explain how if i might kristen comply for the following reasons if you believe the newly discovered evidence which came in after judge knows findings to prosecutors from greece for all we know to prosecutors who botched this in the first place the same two prosecutors for all i know they weren't experts they were just greek prosecutors submitted that well this only applies in greeks and that's therefore why we should have mr cornea back in greece the defense response is pretty simple i will read the actual statute that they have to comply with when a defendant cannot be found at its last known address and his current address is unknown the document shall be served to his spouse or his parents mrs cornea corny's mother that is his parent they had her rather than just give her the indictment what they chose to do was have her prepare an affidavit indicating that he was in miami so they can just give it to their local mayor and here's the problem with that this wasn't the first time they went to her basically the only newly discovered evidence where the two prosecutors giving their opinion which was readily available by the way when judged no mater finding which is what our priest says but the issue is this let's say it is newly discovered evidence what is it oh it's saying that it only complies to greece ok well under chapter one fifty six which according to one thirteen must be scrupulously complied with where does it say that this only applies in greece i was trying to think what analogy to make and i apologize for making a risky analogy but i just heard the word sexual furniture which is a fifty one year old man i thought i would never hear in my lifetime that was the first time i heard it today what makes this job it is what makes  great so let me defer to a juvenile college argument to make my response chapter one fifty six does not contain the language in greece but yet my friends when we would open fortune cookies would ended by saying that it's almost like reading a fortune cookie and adding the words in greeks don't tell me you're scrupulously complying with the statute when you're just saying you know what even though we have to scrupulously comply with it and it says in greece we're just going to say in greece so the new facts the new evidence that was why they went to romania because maybe he was living in romania but it turned out though he was living in miami that's right but he let me ask let me ask you the mirror hypothetical would it be appropriate under this treaty for a greek court to decide whether or not we had as a matter of effective service a process issued a summons on an indictment as opposed to a physical arrest on an american citizen who thereafter fled to greece and was arrested on a provisional arrest warrant at the request of the american government the greek or it would be appropriate for for greek courts to decide that question in your view of the extradition treaty i think it would if we had a statute that said we had t scrupulously comply with it i think we would be held to the letter of the law if the statute was ambiguous in the united states would you still want to greek or to opine on the scope of service of criminal process i understand the court's question but i guess my response would be as it relates to chapter one fifty six when we have to scrupulously comply it's not ambiguous and that's the point and think about what we're asking maybe i guess my argument would be as it relates to statute of limitations it's sort of separate than other issues a statute of limitations mean that a man cannot be persecuted in perpetuity i think back to when i was a child and i saw the movie i a prisoner from a chain gang about somebody who stole a hamburger but in the one nine hundred thirty s and was prosecuted into his sixty's and went on to be a lawyer it's actually based on a true story to take place in georgia the point i'm saying is when we're talking about statue of limitations we're saying there has to be a limit to how long the man can be prosecuted what new evidence existed from one nine hundred ninety nine to two thousand and seventeen the answer is not they knew he was in romania his last address was in remaining there is nothing in the statute that says last address in greece there's just nothing there and if you're going to apply a strict scrutiny test which usually is you know to be honest as a defense attorney usually hurts a defense attorney when you do a strict scrutiny i think you have to be held to the same standard whether it benefits the defendant your statement is that you're totally ignoring sovereignty and international comedy which is pretty important in the law of extradition and the interpretation of treaties between countries and it is but there is additional case law in this i am not saying that we shouldn't give it respect i'm merely saying that you can give it respect without being a rubber stamp and i think that's what the case law supplies i think that's what animal science says in our diverse kingside in our well you know animal science it seems to me is different because in that case the evidence was offered by the chinese minister in a price fixing case where the chinese government might have been implicated in the price fixing conspiracy and sought to exculpate itself with evidence offered before a federal district  civil price fixing case this is a criminal case where we normally rely on the requesting government to assure us that once we've established identity of probable cause that the extradition request is otherwise in conformance with the treaty and with the law of the requesting nation and with our law that's where we recognize the reciprocal offense here  understand it's clearly a different case but that but the language is strikingly similar as it relates to foreign law the supreme court last year indicated we are to accord respectful consideration to a foreign government submission but further held the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign governments state i can certainly understand the context of a price fixing conspiracy where the chinese government may be the unindicted coconspirator in that case but this is an extradition matter and to me that is a very different animal from what was no pun intended then it was before the supreme court in that particular case but your honor if we are to read this to the letter of the law there's no special finding we're supposed to make for murder suspects i agree this is a serious case i agree he's charged with murder i agree the facts of the murder a terrible the question that i have is where under a strict reading on the statute under the treaties under the panhellenic code is there any language that's basically says but this doesn't apply to murder cases well this might be a better question for your opponent but suppose that the statute simply said that the statute of limitation for murder is twenty years and we would simply look at the calendar and say they arrested him in two thousand and seventeen they were too late he's clearly outside the statute of limitations we're not going to honor the extradition request but here notwithstanding  your your argument there's an ambiguity as to whether or not the statute of limitations has run and the question is should the united states just record or now united states court of appeals decide that question under recall or should we accord comedy and respect the sovereignty of greek courts to resolve that question of legal interpretation under greek law can i give the flipside to that argument i'd like an answer to the question before you do yet i think we can give comedy to greece i think we can show respectful deference to grace and we can still rule against them and consider them our friend and the reason for that is simple merely giving the statements of two prosecutors who are not experts merely to prosecutors from greece saying this only applies to greek law and therefore you should give us mr cornea is not enough it's not a greek judge it's not a greek legal opinion it's just two guys who are prosecutors and greets the newly discovered evidence in the same way that i mean would you have us require that if there is such an official the attorney general of greece file an affidavit saying we've complied with the law is that what you want i mean as i understand extradition matters and  i haven't had a lot of them in my career but i've had a few you know these things are very formal requests that begin with the service of a diplomatic note on the state department use the ambassador in greece asking for the issu a provisional arrest warrant and invoking the provisions of the extradition treaty and you know that so i don't know who these people are i mean maybe they're high ranking officials in the ministry of justice if there is such a department agrees well i guess my answer would be they knew in two thousand and thirteen when they had his mother do the affidavit that he was in miami he had a legal resident green card he had a driver's license what efforts did they make the answer is not so it's not just that they used up the full twenty years it's that this july they will have used up the additional five years that's why this court was so generous in expediting there to i see that i am out of time if i could just have thirty more seconds and i guess in in my thirty more seconds what i would say that the additional five years on top of the twenty years are only valid where the greek prosecuting authorities have scrupulously complied with the purchase provisions of one fifty six and four thirty two their testimony was available before  judge no ruled the government did not submit it i mean greece sat on this for years i don't know why but that has to be considered and greece was behind in locating the defendant serving the defendant and getting the district court sufficient evidence to make seated their time thank you let me ask another question yes or is that down in addition to the deference that we owe greek authorities in the burden on the petitioner to show that the a b s relief should be granted that the burden in on the government greek government that the relevant greek statute of limitations has not expired in this appeal mr quinn a seeks to avoid not u s criminal charges or rather extradition to face a charge of murder in greece and it is in that country that he may and most probably would raise his stash of limitations argument as judge thomas noted his extradition was lawfully certified pursuant to eighteen u s c section thirty one eighty four the district court review that certification and king the standard for granting a motion for reconsideration and a rule fifty nine he is based on either newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law and fact and here the district court did determine that the evidence supporting the motion f reconsideration was based on new evidence she found that based on that evidence the stash of limitations in greece has not expired and mr cornell himself has conceded that at least one of the statements provided by the greek government in support of the motion reconsideration was new and that was a statement which stated for the first time in the litigation that article one fifty six of the great code of criminal procedure does not apply extra territorially well as up again with additional evidence in support of its motion for reconsideration and the fact that greece previously had some of the documents and that perhaps it could have provided the statements for voted in support of the motion for reconsideration later does not mean that that evidence was in the possession of the united states earlier and the reason for that is that the united states has no mechanism by which it could compel the greek government to provide its evidence sooner it looked to me from the record that the information that was obtained from greece on september the nineteenth was requested the day before by the u s government if you disagree with that i don't you know i know all right so i'm just wondering if they could get in and one day at that point in time why they couldn't have gotten i'm not talking about statute limitations generally but the specific information about the service of process earlier going to the most the government can do is ask there as i said there's no from that by which we can require greece to provide documents and within  mechanism by which we can require them to provide it within a certain time we certainly informed greece as to the timing with respect to the litigation and ask that they provide information as soon as possible of those contacts and in the record they are not your hon r this really in this case doesn't even require that the wrist requesting country provide even the statutes regarding its special imitations here so here the evidence that the united states was asking greeks to provide was well above what is even ambiguity in favor of granting extradition now here i would also submit that there is not an ambiguity with respect to article one fifty six but rather that statute is plain on its face in authorizing service on the mare in this case that's why she provides that if none of the relatives identified in the article is quote found at the residence of the defendant then service shall be effected on the merit the defendant's former residence under a plain reading of those words here neither mrs c his mother nor any of his other relatives was found at his relatives events at the time that service was to be affected therefore under the plain language of article one fifty six service should have been effected as it was on the mare and the statue of limitations was properly told on that basis and moreover a great court based on the service what it deemed to be legal service has in fact suspended special limitations in greece mr quinn has not shut challenge that order increased order and that order has not been invalidate determination of their own law and i've been asked you a hypothetical what if the statement from the greek authorities had said only that the statute of limitations in mr corneas case is extended to twenty five years with the united states courts be obligated to accept that statement as conclusive of whether the treaty requirement has been satisfied no your honor and here the government is and we are going for a great deference and the reason for that is that the foreign government must do more than just simply make a bald assertion but it must provide some justification that is not clearly unreasonable in that and that's what the greek government has done here it is not simply said our statue of limitations is twenty five years it has provided the greek statues provide a basis for establishing that twenty five years it's provided the greek court order which has in fact extended the statute of limitations to twenty five years and it's provided its interpretation of that law explaining its justification for why in its view the specializations  twenty five years there's a slightly different topic but i found in the record a letter dated july twenty sixth twenty eighteen from the whole anik republic ministry of justice transparency and human rights and that letter very brief but it says the mother was not served with the november two thousand and thirteen decree because the expedited person is not staying on her money in romania at his mother's address so his mother was not a cohabitant do you think that that letter is sufficient to should have been sufficient to satisfy the united states court well that letter in conjunction with all the other evidence that was in the record at the time was sufficient yes that letter explains how article one fifty six under its plain language did not require service to have been affected by mr carney as mother because she was he she was not found at his residence at the time and this letter accompanies the initial statement provided in the extradition request stating that the start of ins is twenty five years along with the the statutes provided by the greek government establishing that statute of limitations as well as the greek court order is that is that ministry the organization that's authorized to make such an interpretation of law yes the ministry of justice in greece is the agency of greece tasked with interpreting its law and under the treaty itself supplements to extradition requests are passed directly from the ministry of justice to the department of justice as was done in this case therefore this is an official statement provided by the greek government to the united states that preceded the district court's ruling on the motion for reconsideration right track that a company of the government's objections to the had the initial hippias determination which was that's right here on earth this is these documents right about greece established that this that should limitations in greece had not expired at that time particularly when viewed with great deference as there's been a long traditional tradition of doing you know there are a trio of century old supreme court cases that dictate the approach a core an extradition proceeding should take when confronted with an issue of foreign law first there's the case of granby shine where the supreme court stated that a u s court need not be conversant in foreign criminal law second in being a v bradley the supreme court stated that objections that seaver have technicality do not present a reason to deny extradition and finally as i mentioned there's the factor case saying that extradition treaties must be construed liberally in favor of extradition and based on these cases u s courts have historically declined to opine on issues of foreign law and indeed the government's aware of no circuit court case in which the court  a foreign governments interpretation of its own law in an extradition proceeding well i think we all agree that there's a certain amount of deference that so that the greek government and interpreted greek law but what do you have to say about mr wright's contention that there is a on newly discovered evidence and then correct an earlier decision that first that she had made as long as it's newly discovered and as long as the government was diligent discovered or if the evidence could not have been detained sooner which the government would submit that here it could not obtain this evidence sooner and indeed it tried to and the record reflects and the evidence that was the government was able to obtain at that time if the court has no further questions i would ask that you affirm the decision of the district court and i would respectfully remind the court that the case has been expedited in light of the expiration of the recession limitations in less than three months and now and if the court is inclined to rule in the government's adopted the findings of magistrates now which is i think important because it was twenty six pages and the eventual ruling after this prosecutor flew down to miami and explained about the political consequences of ruling against greece when the trial court change that ruling was two paragraphs two paragraphs changed their original adaptation of the twenty six page finding and at no point was it ever made clear by the trial by the district court that magistrates nose findings were erroneous they just reversed it based on the newly discovered evidence and the newly discovered evidence was an expert it was just two statements from two prosecutors in greece and as your honor points out yes it is important to be deferential it is important to show respect and give comedy to other countries the same way we would like it but it's also important not to be a rubber stamp and that is why it is an honor to appear in front of a court where political considerations do not play a part it's just let you go when the state department decides whether or not it will honor the extradition requests just because a federal court orders a defendant extradited the ultimate decision is up to the secretary of state as i see that my my time is up but i would simply say this to your honor certainly there was nothing preventing the secretary of state or the department of justice for providing this evidence prior to magistrate not snowmaking or finding prior to the trial court making their finding and there was nothing preventing the report that helen equip up like from going to the united states when they became aware in two thousand and fourteen two thousand and fourteen five years ago well exactly not just the nation where mr courtney it was not just the state but the city and anybody can get on google and find out his permanent residence his son base corporation working corporate it under the same name they chose not to and they should not be rewarded so it is are you arguing that we should inject some sort of been a stoppel notion an extradition request if we don't think that the requesting nation has moved quickly enough in its homicide investigation not at all i'm simply asking that the letter of the law which as a defense attorney have had that argument made to me for twenty six years to give it in this case to the government the same way it's given to the defense under the letter of the law there is to be no interpretation i think judge wilson said it best they can just change their mind based on wolf if you don't think they can if if if the rule initial ruling was manifest error of the law and we would submit