UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-80746-MC-UNA/BER 

 

In re: 

EXTRADITION OF LUCUAS CARVALHO ROLLO 

_____________________________________________/ 

ORDER 

Defendant was arrested on April 30, 2020, based upon an extradition request by the 

Government of Brazil. ECF No. 3. He appeared before me by video teleconference the next 

morning. ECF No. 9. At that time, I appointed the Federal Public Defender as his counsel. I also 

advised him that he could seek release on bond and that he was entitled to a hearing at which he 

could challenge his extradition. Id. A hearing was scheduled for May 8, 2020, to address any 

request for bond and for a status report on whether the Defendant wanted an extradition hearing. 

Id. 

Before the Court is Defendant’s request, communicated by email from his counsel to the 

Court’s staff, to be physically present at the May 8 bond hearing. In light of the current COVID19 health situation, I find that the interests of justice do not allow me to conduct an in-person 

hearing with the Defendant at this time. 

I begin with several relevant legal principles. First, an extradition hearing is not a criminal 

proceeding. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained: 

The singular nature of extradition proceedings largely determines and explains the 

scope of a defendant's due process rights. Extradition is an executive, not a judicial, 

function. The power to extradite derives from the President's power to conduct 

foreign affairs. An extradition proceeding is not an ordinary Article III case or 

controversy. It clearly is not a criminal proceeding. Rather, the judiciary serves an 

independent review function delegated to it by the Executive and defined by statute. 

Case 9:20-mc-80746-UNA Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 1 of 3
2 

The inquiry conducted by an “extradition magistrate” is limited. The extradition 

magistrate conducts a hearing simply to determine whether there is “evidence 

sufficient to sustain the charge [against the defendant] under the provisions of the 

proper treaty or convention.” If the evidence is sufficient, the extradition magistrate 

makes a finding of extraditability and certifies the case to the Secretary of State. 

. . . 

Extradition ultimately remains an Executive function. After the courts have 

completed their limited inquiry, the Secretary of State conducts an independent 

review of the case to determine whether to issue a warrant of surrender. The 

Secretary exercises broad discretion and may properly consider myriad factors 

affecting both the individual defendant as well as foreign relations which an 

extradition magistrate may not. The Secretary of State's decision is not generally 

reviewable by the courts. 

Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Pen, 993 F.2d 824, 828–29 (11th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted) 

(brackets in original). 

Second, an extradition defendant has an extremely limited right to bond. The Bail Reform 

Act does not apply. Matter of Extradition of Ricardo Alberto Martinelli Berrocal, 263 F. Supp. 

3d 1280, 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (J. Torres). An extradition defendant can be released on bond, but 

only if (1) special circumstances exist and (2) he does not pose a risk of flight or danger to the 

community. Id. at 1304. 

Third, an extradition defendant does not receive the same constitutional protections as a 

criminal defendant. “Constitutional procedural protections which by their terms are applicable 

only in criminal cases, however, are unavailable in extradition proceedings.” Martin v. Warden, 

Atlanta Pen, 993 F.2d 824, 829 (11th Cir. 1993). 

 Fourth, a defendant has a right to be present at all stages of a criminal proceeding. That 

right derives from three sources: “the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the Due 

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43.” United 

States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 997 (11th Cir. 2001). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 

Case 9:20-mc-80746-UNA Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 2 of 3
3 

do not apply in extradition proceedings. Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(a)(5)(A). Nor does the confrontation 

clause, which by its terms applies only in “criminal prosecutions.” U.S. Const., Amendment VI. 

 Our Court has determined that, at least until June 28, 2020, felony pleas and sentencings 

“cannot be conducted in person without seriously jeopardizing public health and safety.” 

Administrative Order 2020-23 (Mar. 28, 2020). Conducting an in-person extradition hearing or 

bond hearing for this Defendant would implicate the same public health and safety concerns. 

 WHEREFORE, it is ordered that the bond hearing scheduled for May 8, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. 

is cancelled. The Court will conduct a status conference at that time, which the Defendant may 

attend by video teleconference. The bond hearing will be rescheduled by separate order for a date 

after June 28, 2020. If the Defendant desires a bond hearing before then, he may file a motion 

addressing whether he is entitled to a more expeditious hearing and whether he has a legal right to 

be present, in person, at such a hearing. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2020, in chambers at West Palm Beach, 

Florida. 

 ____________________________________ 

 BRUCE E. REINHART 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 9:20-mc-80746-UNA Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2020 Page 3 of 3