Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-mj-06049/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-mj-06049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jean Succar Kuri
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE THE EXTRADITION OF:

JEAN SUCCAR KURI

A Fugitive from the Government of

Mexico.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-6049M-DKD

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

OF LAW and CERTIFICATION OF

EXTRADITABILITY

Jean Succar Kuri was provisionally arrested on or about February 5, 2004, pursuant to

a complaint and provisional arrest warrant issued in the Central District of California by U.S.

Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich on November 26, 2003, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §

3184, at the request of the Government of Mexico pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between

the United States and The Republic of Mexico. In this matter, the United States acts on behalf

of the Mexican government. As set forth in the Amended Complaint, sworn before U.S.

Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis on October 12, 2004, Mexico seeks extradition pursuant

to four arrest warrants:

First Arrest Warrant Third Criminal Court Judge of the Judicial District of Cancun,

Quintana Roo, Mexico. Criminal case Number 300/2003

Allegations: Violations of Articles 127 (third paragraph) and 191

of the State Penal Code – Comparable Rape and Corruption of

Minors

Second Arrest Warrant Third Criminal Court Judge of the Judicial District of Cancun,

Quintana Roo, Mexico. Criminal case Number 13/2004

Allegations: Violations of Articles 127, 129 and 191 of the State

Penal Code – Comparable Rape, Sexual Molestation of Minors and

Corruption of Minors

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Third Arrest Warrant Second Judge of District "A" in the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Criminal Case Number 31/2004

Allegations: Violations of Articles 201 of the Mexican Federal

Penal Code – Child Pornography

Fourth Arrest Warrant Third District Judge in the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Criminal Case Number 78/2004

Allegations: Violations of Article 201 of the Mexican Federal

Criminal Code – Child Pornography and Corruption of Minors

Mexico is required under the treaty to submit a formal extradition request, supported by

appropriate documents, to the United States Department of State. The Department of State has

certified that Mexico has presented the following documents: 

1. On April 6, 2004, the United States Department of State certified in a

document bound with a gold ribbon and seal that it had received formal

documentation from the Republic of Mexico requesting extradition for crimes

detailed in two state warrants of arrest and one federal warrant of arrest. Exhibit

A. The three arrest warrants as certified by Robin M. Bishop, Minister Counselor

for Consular Affairs of the United States of America, are bound with a red ribbon

and seal and are filed in this matter as Exhibits B, C and D, respectively.

2. On September 28, 2004, the United States Department of State certified

in a document bound with a gold ribbon and seal that it had received formal

documentation from the Republic of Mexico requesting extradition for an

additional federal warrant of arrest. Exhibit G. The second federal arrest warrant

as certified by Robin M. Bishop, Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs of the

United States of America, is bound with a red ribbon and seal and is filed in this

matter as Exhibit G.

On February 6, 2006, Succar Kuri made his first appearance in the District of Arizona

and a status hearing regarding extradition was set for February 12, 2004. The parties thereafter

stipulated to numerous continuances of the extradition hearing. The Court approved these

continuances in each instance for good cause shown; good cause generally associated with the

complications attendant to an extradition proceeding, such as the need for translations and

consideration of a foreign court's record. 

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

At the April 4, 2006 hearing, the Court directed the United States to file proposed

findings of fact and conclusions of law and provided for Respondent to have one week to file

any objections to the proposed findings. Respondent declined to file any objections to the

proposed findings, which are adopted in part in this Order.

- 3 -

On April 12, 2005, this Court held an extradition hearing and considered the evidence

of criminality presented by Mexico to determine whether it was “sufficient to sustain the charge

under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention.” 18 U.S.C. § 3184. The Court took the

matter under advisement and did not announce its oral ruling granting extradition until a

subsequent hearing on April 4, 2006. The delay from the extradition hearing until ruling

deserves comment. This is especially so because much of the record and filings in this case

have been sealed to protect the identities of minor children named in papers filed with the Court.

As will be addressed in more detail below, much of this delay was associated with Respondent's

allegations of prosecutorial irregularities and witness recantations. The Court concluded that

it should afford additional time to Respondent to allow these allegations to be presented to the

Court. The Court was inclined to indulge this additional time because the record was, if not

irregular, at the least imperfect. Some of the imperfections were doubtless the product of

translation errors, but the absence of care in this regard did incline the Court to examine the

record quite closely. Moreover, an extraordinarily severe hurricane season caused some further

delay because of disruptions to travel and communications in the requesting Mexican State. In

the end and through the passage of considerable time, the Court believes it has given

Respondent a full and fair opportunity to present the allegations of prosecutorial irregularities

and witness recantation and thus it now issues its written ruling following the April 4, 2006

hearing.1

Based upon the hearing and all of the subsequently submitted exhibits, the Court finds

the fugitive extraditable, and certifies that conclusion to the United States Secretary of State,

who will then decide whether to surrender Jean Succar Kuri.

I. Elements Necessary for Extradition

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

To accomplish extradition, the United States on behalf of Mexico must demonstrate: (1)

that the judicial officer is authorized to conduct extradition proceedings; (2) that the court had

jurisdiction over the fugitive; (3) that the applicable treaty was in full force and effect; (4) that

the crimes for which surrender was requested were covered by the treaties; and (5) that there

is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the person before the court

committed it. Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U.S. 502 (1896). Accord, Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511

(1916); McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U.S. 520 (1913); Zanazanian v. United States, 729 F.2d 624

(9th Cir. 1980).

A. Authority of the judicial officer. 

Congress has specifically conferred upon United States Magistrate Judges the authority

to conduct extradition proceedings where the magistrate judge is authorized to do so by a court

of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 3184. District of Arizona Criminal Local Rule 57.6(d)(15)

provides this specific authority: "[F]ull-time Magistrate Judges in the District of Arizona shall

perform the following duties . . .[c]onduct extradition proceedings in accordance with 18 U.S.C.

§ 3184."

B. Jurisdiction over the fugitive. 

This element is satisfied because the Respondent is before the court. See, In re Pazienza,

619 F.Supp. 611 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Respondent is in custody and appears before the Court as

the result of the service of the provisional arrest warrant issued by this Court.

C. Treaty in full force and effect.

The extradition statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3184, appears to limit extradition to instances in

which a treaty is in force between the requesting state and the requested state, and several cases

have so held. See, e.g., Argento v. Horn, 241 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1957). As part of its proof, the

Government has provided a declaration from an attorney in the Office of the Legal Adviser of

the Department of State attesting that the treaty is in full force and effect. The Department of

State's opinion in this sphere is entitled to deference from the Court. Galanis v. Pallanck, 568

F.2d 234 (2nd Cir. 1977); Sayne v. Shipley, 418 F.2d 679 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S.

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

903 (1970). Ex A, Declaration of Denise Manning, pages 1-3 and the Treaty, pages 35-56.

Moreover, Respondent has not challenged the existence of this element.

D. Treaty Applies to the Crimes Charged.

The treaty provides for the return of fugitives charged with or convicted of a crime in the

requesting state. The crimes identified in the Amended Complaint and request for extradition

are covered by Article 2, paragraphs (1), (3) and (4)(a) of the Extradition Treaty between the

United States and Mexico and also by Item number 12 of the Treaty's Appendix. Under Article

2, paragraphs (1), (3) and (4)(a) and Item 12 of the list of offenses which comprise the Appendix

to the Treaty, the charges contained in the request from Mexico are for extraditable offenses.

The documents submitted by Mexico, the requesting state, have established that the fugitive has

been charged with the crimes recited in the Amended Complaint.

The Supreme Court noted in Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (1922) that:

The law does not require that the name by which the crime is described in the two

countries shall be the same; nor that the scope of liability shall be coextensive, or,

in other respects, the same in the two countries. It is enough if the particular act

charged is criminal in both jurisdictions.

259 U.S. at 312 (emphasis added). Accord, Messina v. United States, 728 F.2d 77 (2nd Cir.

1984); Cucuzzella v. Keliikoa, 638 F.2d 105, 108 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Stockinger,

269 F.2d 681, 687 (2nd Cir. 1959); Di Stefano v. Moore, 46 F.2d 308 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 46 F. 2d

310 (2nd Cir. 1930), cert. denied, 283 U.S. 830 (1931). A court's analysis of the question of dual

criminality is subject to the general requirement that the court "approach challenges to

extradition with a view toward finding the offense within the treaty." McElvy v. Civiletti, 523

F.Supp. 42, 48 (S.D.FLa. 1981); 477 F.2d 333 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 847 (1973).

Statements by the United States Department of State as to interpretation of treaties are to be

given great weight by our courts. Sayne v. Shipley, 418 F.2d 679, 684 (5th Cir. 1969), cert.

denied, 398 U.S. 903 (1970); In re Ryan, supra, 360 F.Supp. at 272, n.4; In re Extradition of

D'Amico, 177 F.Supp. 648, 653 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. 1959), appeal dismissed, 286 F.2d 320 (2nd Cir.),

cert. denied, 366 U.S. 963 (1961). By forwarding the formal documents supporting the

extradition request of the Republic of Mexico, and in express language contained in the

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

certifications provided by the State Department, the United States has determined that the

crimes described in the Mexican arrest warrants comply with the dual criminality requirements

of the Treaty. There does not appear to be any credible challenge to the dual criminality of the

alleged offenses. The allegations of corruption of minors and child pornography are crimes

punishable for longer than one year and are crimes in the United States of America. Defendant

asserts a number of defenses to the prosecutions for the child pornography offenses but these

challenges are beyond the purview of this Court. It is for the Courts with jurisdiction in these

matters, in the Republic of Mexico, to consider any such defenses. 

E. Competent legal evidence.

This is the familiar requirement of probable cause to believe that a crime was committed

and that the person before the court committed it. The standard of proof in extradition

proceedings is that of probable cause as defined in federal law. Sindona v. Grant, 619 F.2d 167

(2nd Cir. 1980). This means evidence sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and

caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief in the guilt of the accused. Coleman

v. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The Supreme Court stated in Collins v.

Loisel, supra, that "[t]he function of the committing magistrate is to determine whether there

is competent evidence to justify holding the accused to await trial, and not to determine whether

evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction." 259 U.S. 309, 316. The Fourth Circuit explained

the court's function in an extradition proceeding in the following terms:

The extradition hearing is not designed as a final trial. The purpose is to inquire

into the presence of probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of

one or more of the criminal laws of the extraditing country, that the alleged

conduct, if committed in the United States, would have been a violation of our

criminal law, and that the extradited individual is the one sought by the foreign

nation for trial on the charge of violation of its criminal laws. 

Peroff v. Hylton, 542 F.2d 1247, 1249 (4th Cir. 1976). See also, Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S.

311, 312 (1925); United States ex rel. Sakaguchi v. Kaulukukui, 520 F.2d 726, 730-31 (9th Cir.

1975) (magistrate's function is to determine whether there is "any" evidence establishing

reasonable or probable cause); Jimenez v. Aristeguieta, 311 F.2d 547, 562 (5th Cir. 1962);

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

Merino v. United States Marshal, 326 F.2d 5, 11 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 872

(1964); In re Ryan, 360 F.Supp. 270, 273 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 478 F.2d 1397 (2nd Cir. 1973).

II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The specific findings of fact upon which the Court has relied are specified below and on

the record at the April 4, 2006 hearing.

The First Arrest Warrant (Exhibit B16) alleges violations of Articles 127 (comparable

rape) and 191 (corruption of minors) of the State Penal Code for conduct commencing in 1996

against four minor children. The Third Criminal Court for the District of Cancun, Quintana Roo

issued its arrest warrant upon consideration of a number of statements of the victims.

Respondent has presented recantations of these statements as well as evidence that the

statements were presented by a prosecutor who was herself arrested pursuant to allegations that

she falsified declarations of child victims in other cases. The Court has allowed Respondent to

present this evidence to allow the Court to determine whether the arrest warrants are supported

by probable cause. "'Generally, evidence that explains away or completely obliterates probable

cause is the only evidence admissible at an extradition hearing, whereas evidence that merely

controverts the existence of probable cause, or raises a defense, is not admissible.'" Barapind

v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 749 (9th Cir. 2005), quoting Mainero v. Gregg, 164 F.3d 1199, 1297

n. 7 (9th Cir. 1999). The basis for this rule is that the extradition court is not in any position to

weigh or consider conflicting evidence. The Court cannot and should not conduct a remote

trial. If this threshold of probable cause is met, the respondent must be returned to the

prosecuting country for a trial where the local trier of fact can properly resolve the conflicting

issues of proof and credibility. It should be added that it is conceivable that recantation

evidence could completely obliterate probable cause (see In Re the Matter of Extradition of

Contreras, 800 F.Supp. 1462 (S.D. Texas 1992)) and it is for this reason that the Court has

allowed Respondent the opportunity to develop this record. However, after carefully

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Court did not review materials, such as audio cassettes, which were submitted

without an English translation nor did it review certain materials contained in Government's

Exhibits Q, R, S, T and U (as is more fully explained in a separate Order issued this same day).

In addition, the Court was unable to open the VCD which the Government submitted during the

April 12, 2005 Extradition Hearing as its Exhibit D-14a.

- 8 -

considering all of the evidence and reading every word2

 of the voluminous record, the Court

does not believe that Respondent has completely obliterated probable cause even upon a

consideration of the possible recantations and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent attacks probable cause with statements and recantations, and in one instance

a partial re-recantation. This controverting evidence does not explain away or completely

obliterate probable cause. The statements simply conflict. There is no way for the Court short

of trial to determine where the truth lies. With respect to the First Warrant, the Court finds that

it is supported by probable cause and a certification of extradition will issue. 

The Second Arrest Warrant (Exhibit C18) alleges violations of Articles 127 (comparable

rape), 129 (indecent molestation of children) and 191 (corruption of minors) of the State Penal

Code for conduct commencing in February and March 2003. The Third Criminal Court for the

District of Cancun, Quintana Roo issued this arrest warrant upon consideration of statements

of victims and others that Respondent inserted his fingers into the vaginal openings of minor

children, that he engaged in erotic sexual contact with a child under the age of fourteen and that

he did through this and other conduct described seek to sexually corrupt minors. Respondent

challenges this arrest warrant with the claims of prosecutorial misconduct asserted against the

First Arrest Warrant. Again, Respondent's evidence merely controverts or raises a defense and

does not completely obliterate probable cause. With respect to the Second Warrant, the Court

finds that it is supported by probable cause and a certification of extradition will issue.

The Third Arrest Warrant (Exhibit D13) alleges violations of Article 201of the Federal

Criminal Code (child pornography) commencing in or about 1996 and continuing to in or about

2003. The Second Judge of District "A" of the State of Quintana Roo considered victim

statements that Respondent photographed and filmed minor children engaging in sexual activity.

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

These statements included allegations that Respondent maintained a hidden video camera in his

master bedroom at his Cancun home. The victim witnesses also described child pornography

maintained by and shown to them by Respondent. The issuing court also considered evidence

of internet transmission of child pornography. Respondent attacks this arrest warrant on the

same grounds as above and also asserts an ex post facto defense which does not completely

obliterate probable cause. With respect to the Third Arrest Warrant, the Court finds that it is

supported by probable cause and a certification of extradition will issue.

The Fourth Arrest Warrant (Exhibit G18) alleges three violations of Article 201 of the

Mexican Federal Penal Code (child pornography and corruption of minors) in "that during the

period 1997 to 2003, the [Respondent] forced and induced [three minor children] to perform

acts of a lewd, sexual or exhibitionist nature, in order to record them on video, and for this

reason he sought to corrupt the minors." Exhibit G1. These allegations are supported by the

statements of the alleged victims as well as photographs of naked minor children for which

probable cause exists to believe that the photographs were taken by Respondent in his bedroom

at his home in Cancun. In addition, the submission of a videotape which depicts Respondent

controlling a video camera in his bedroom supports a finding of probable cause that he used

such a device in furtherance of the alleged offenses. With respect to the Fourth Arrest Warrant,

the Court finds that it is supported by probable cause and a certification of extradition will issue.

CONCLUSION

Extradition hearings are often characterized as sui generis. See, e.g., Hooker v. Klein,

supra, 573 F.2d at 1369. Despite the unusual nature of the proceedings, there is no mystery to

the law of extradition: it is regulated by a body of well-settled precedent, much of it originating

with the Supreme Court. Ahmad v. Wigen, supra, 910 F.2d at 1065. Although other elements

must also be present, the paramount issue of every extradition proceeding is whether there exists

probable cause to believe that the fugitive has committed the crimes charged in the requesting

country. The latter determination is the kind that courts make in a preliminary hearing under

Rule 5.1, Fed.R.Crim.P. Ward v. Rutherford, supra, 921 F.2d 286 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The

extradition hearing must not be converted into a trial on the merits, and the rules ordinarily

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

applicable in such trials are not used. The extraditee's opportunities to oppose the request are

limited because his defenses will be aired in the requesting country. The Court's findings of fact

and conclusions of law have dealt with each of the elements listed above, and with each offense

for which extradition is requested.

Based upon these findings of fact and a review of the evidence described herein, the

Court makes the following conclusions of law. The Court, as a properly appointed U.S.

Magistrate Judge, is a judicial officer authorized to conduct extradition proceedings, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and the Local Rules of Practice.

The court has jurisdiction over the fugitive because he was in custody in the District of

Arizona and has been brought before this Court as the result of the Provisional Arrest Warrant

issued in this action. As the result of the personal jurisdiction over Jean Succar Kuri, the

District Court of Arizona has jurisdiction to decide whether Jean Succar Kuri is extraditable.

See, In re Pazienza, 619 F.Supp. 611 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

The Court has found that the applicable treaty is in full force and effect and the crimes

for which surrender was requested are covered by the treaty. From a review of the documents

submitted, it is clear there are criminal charges pending in the requesting state. There is

competent legal evidence which supports the issuance of arrest warrants for Jean Succar Kuri

for the crimes alleged in the Amended Complaint. The evidence is sufficient to establish

probable cause to believe that the crimes were committed and that the person before the court,

Jean Succar Kuri, committed them. United States v. Barr, 619 F.Supp. 1068, 1070 (E.D.Pa.

1985). Based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court finds that there is

sufficient cause to determine Jean Succar Kuri is extraditable for each of the arrest warrants

issued by the courts of the requesting country. Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U.S. 502 (1896). Accord,

Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511 (1916); McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U.S. 520 (1913);

Zanazanian v. United States, 729 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1980).

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY

It is the Order of this Court that the Clerk shall transmit this Certification of

Extraditability to:

U.S. Department of State

Office of Legal Advisor

Law Enforcement & Intelligence

Attention: Winnie Fuentes

2201 C. Street N.W., Room 5419

Washington, D.C. 80520 

for the determination of whether Jean Succar Kuri should be surrendered to the Republic of

Mexico.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-mj-06049-DKD Document 134 Filed 05/17/06 Page 11 of 11