1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-mc-022829-UNA

IN THE MATTER OF 

THE EXTRADITION OF 

CESAR HORACIO DUARTE JAQUEZ

 /

DETENTION ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Release (ECF No. 14) and the 

Government’s Motion for Detention Pending Extradition Proceedings (ECF No. 10). Respondent

Cesar Horacio Duarte Jacquez was arrested in this District on July 8, 2020, on a warrant and 

complaint issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (ECF No. 1). Mr. Duarte first appeared before me 

on July 10, 2020, via videoconference. At the request of the Parties, a hearing was scheduled for 

July 30, 2020, for the determination of release or detention pending proceedings. Respondent

Duarte appeared via videoconference, represented by retained counsel. Family members appeared 

on behalf of and in support of Respondent Duarte. After the hearing, counsel was afforded an 

opportunity to file additional exhibits under seal, to which the Government had an opportunity to 

respond, but did not.

Though the circumstances of Respondent’s case are unusual, and he has made a strong case 

for his release, bail cannot be here granted. The general rule that release is not afforded to a 

respondent in extradition proceedings will be followed as special circumstances warranting his 

release have not been shown.

I. BACKGROUND

This case concerns the potential extradition of Respondent Duarte, the former Governor of 

the Mexican state of Chihuahua, Mexico, from the United States to Mexico. The Government of 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 1 of 8
2

Mexico seeks to extradite Respondent on charges of aggravated embezzlement and conspiracy. 

The charges arise from conduct allegedly committed during Duarte’s tenure as Governor, between 

2010 and 2016. According to the Complaint, accounting performed after Duarte left office revealed

that public funds were diverted to companies in which Duarte or his family had ownership interest. 

Monies were additionally traced to an account controlled by Duarte and his wife, and used to 

purchase assets for her business. Millions of dollars in diverted funds have allegedly been traced 

to Duarte’s control or that of his family members, allegations he vehemently contests. According 

to the Request for Extradition, however, it is alleged that following the 2016 election, Duarte 

expressed concern to his cabinet members for the need to document every expenditure he diverted 

and set weekly meetings for the purpose of creating justification for those expenditures.

On October 8, 2019, a judge sitting in Chihuahua, Mexico, issued a warrant for Duarte’s 

arrest on these allegations. An extradition complaint was first presented in the District of New 

Mexico, upon belief that Duarte was located there, and a magistrate judge in that District issued a 

warrant for his arrest on the complaint. He was subsequently found and arrested in Miami-Dade 

County, where he has been living since 2017.

Respondent has been residing in the United States since 2016. Duarte contends that he 

arrived in 2016 seeking medical care following a helicopter crash, and that he arrived here before 

he was aware of the criminal allegations against him. In his Motion for Release, Duarte provides 

substantial support for his contention that the charges against him have been brought at the behest 

of his political rival, successor to his post, Javier Corral Jurado. Duarte avers that Corral has 

focused his administration on Duarte’s extradition and conviction. Though it is not clear what 

Duarte believes fuels this motivation, he argues that Corral has used this prosecution to distract 

from his own poor performance as governor. Whatever motivates Corral, he has apparently 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 2 of 8
3

campaigned for Duarte’s extradition by raising billboards calling for his arrest and marches to 

drive support for his extradition. 

II. STANDARD OF LAW

The applicable law is not disputed, and both Parties have similarly described the standard 

this Court applies in deciding whether to grant bail to a respondent in extradition proceedings. A 

foreign or international extradition proceeding is not a criminal case. Martin v. Warden, Atlanta, 

Pen., 993 F.2d 824, 829 (11th Cir. 1993). The process of formal extradition is a diplomatic process, 

governed generally by the applicable extradition treaty and the federal extradition statute, 18 

U.S.C. §§ 3181–3196. In re Extradition of Shaw, No. 14-M C-81475-WM, 2015 WL 521183, at 

*4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2015). The Bail Reform Act does not apply to extradition proceedings, see

18 U.S.C. § 3142; and the federal extradition statute does not provide any authority for a district 

court to grant bail to a potential extraditee. In re Extradition of Berrocal, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1280, 

1292 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3184)). In the absence of statutory guidance on bond or 

release pending extradition proceedings, federal case law has developed a standard for considering 

the present motions. 

There is a presumption against bond in extradition proceedings. Martin v. Warden, Atlanta 

Pen, 993 F.2d 824, 827 (11th Cir 1993). “A defendant in an extradition case will be released on 

bail only if he can prove ‘special circumstances.’” Matter of Extradition of Ricardo Alberto 

Martinelli Berrocal, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1280, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (quoting Martin, 993 F.2d at

827). Respondent’s burden here in showing special circumstances warranting release on bond 

cannot be overstated; considering this Court’s limited role in an extradition proceeding, 

contemplating any bond is antithetical to that process. It is with this legal context that the Court 

has evaluated Respondent Duarte’s motion. 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 3 of 8
4

A. Special Circumstances Warranting Release

Respondent advances three grounds for finding special circumstances. First, he contends 

that since first becoming aware of Mexico’s charges against him in 2017, he has engaged in 

cooperative communications with the United States Government through counsel. Second, he 

contends that the COVID-19 restrictions on visitation at the prison facility defeat his ability to 

prepare his defense to these proceedings with counsel. Finally, he contends that the non-violent 

nature of the charges against him constitute a special circumstance. 

1. Cooperation 

Duarte contends that he has cooperated with the government by providing voluntary 

information to assist the investigation, offering his voluntary surrender to authorities, and keeping 

his whereabouts in the United States open. In 2018, Duarte represents that he retained a private 

firm to investigate witnesses likely to provide testimony against him and produced the ensuing 

recordings, which tend to support his claim that his life may be in danger and that Corral is driving 

his prosecution, to the United States Government. None of the cases cited by either party 

contemplate similar facts and it may indeed be a unique circumstance: the extent of 

communications between counsel for Duarte and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is significant and 

unusual. I nonetheless find that on this record, his voluntary communications with the government 

in 2017 and 2018 insufficient to amount special circumstances warranting his release. 

Duarte’s evidence of cooperation has been filed under seal and substantively will not be 

described other than to note that the facts advanced therein are consistent with the positions taken 

in the present motion for release; that is to say, the communications may fairly be described as 

efforts to dissuade the Government from accepting the extradition request from Mexico. While the 

letters do evidence Duarte’s transparency with the government at least with respect to his intention 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 4 of 8
5

to answer to the United States Government as required, they do not, importantly, refute the 

government’s charge that Duarte knowingly failed to appear in Mexico upon the issuance of an 

arrest warrant in 2016 and 2017. Thus, the evidence of Duarte’s cooperation with the United States 

Government, viewed in this context, reveals a simultaneous resistance to comply with the 

government seeking his extradition. The acceptance of responsibility normally attendant to 

cooperation with the government is not present under these circumstances, and I do not here find 

that his communication with the U.S. Attorney’s office substantiates his argument that it evidences 

that he is not a flight risk.

Additionally, while counsel argued at the hearing that he offered to voluntarily surrender 

Duarte repeatedly over the three years that he communicated with the Government, the letters 

advanced do not reveal an offer to surrender was communicated therein. Maybe this occurred 

orally, but there is no competent evidence in this record of the proffered offers to surrender. 

Accordingly, I do not here find that his cooperation amounts to a special circumstance 

warranting his release pending extradition proceedings. 

2. Restrictions on Defense

Duarte contends that due to COVID-19 restrictions on visitation at the prison, his ability to 

assist in the preparation of his defense is so impaired as to rise to a special circumstance. While 

the Court appreciates the difficulty presented by the visitation restrictions, I do not find the 

limitations constitute special circumstances to meet the standard for extradition bail. Other courts 

to have considered the argument have likewise rejected it where phone calls with counsel are still 

available to the Respondent. Matter of Extradition of Carr, No. 20 CR 370, 2020 WL 4816052, at 

*6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2020). Duarte represents that there has been a significant delay in the 

delivery of his mail from counsel but acknowledges that he has been able to speak to counsel by 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 5 of 8
6

phone. The pandemic has strained the preparation of every incarcerated criminal defendant, no 

less so than Mr. Duarte, yet it has not been recognized as a special circumstance for purposes even 

of deciding release under the Bail Reform Act; nor is it sufficient to meet Mr. Duarte’s burden 

here. 

3. Economic Nature of Crime

Duarte urges that the non-violent nature of the underlying allegations may be considered a 

special circumstance warranting his release on bond. Respondent’s reliance on United States v. 

Taitz, 130 F.R.D. 442, 45-46 (S.D. Cal 1990) is misplaced. While the court there noted both that 

the respondent had no criminal history and was charged with a non-violent offense, additional facts 

that the court relied upon included the complexity of the case; the expectation that proceedings 

would take at least six months; defendant’s allergy to a compound present in the food and soap in 

the institution; an inability to practice his religion while incarcerated and finally, the fact that the 

fraud charged was an bondable offense in the country seeking his extradition. None of these 

additional facts have been advanced in this case. Standing alone, “[t]he fact that an accused is 

charged only with nonviolent, economic crimes is not a special circumstance justifying release on 

bail.” In re Extradition of Boeyink, No. MISC. 2:04M30, 2004 WL 6074945, at *3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 

28, 2004) (quoted in Matter of Extradition of Ricardo Alberto Martinelli Berrocal, 263 F. Supp. 

3d 1280, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2017)). Taitz must be further distinguished on the basis that respondent 

there was not accused of abusing a position of trust or stealing from public coiffures, as Duarte is. 

Having considered the special circumstances identified by Respondent, I find none that 

warrant his release on bond. 

B. Risk of Flight

Courts in this Circuit consider whether the extraditee presents a flight risk or a danger to 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 6 of 8
7

the Community separately from the inquiry into special circumstances. In re Berrocal, 263 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1303-04. In evaluating whether Duarte presents a risk of flight, I have considered his 

financial means, foreign connections, his age, and the seriousness of the offenses alleged. Id. at 

1304.

Respondent, through counsel, proffered a spreadsheet of assets to substantiate his lack of 

significant financial wealth (and also demonstrate what assets are available for the purpose of 

securing a bond). The spreadsheet represents that Mr. Duarte has a number of assets, if largely not 

liquid ones, such as livestock and parcels of land.1 The Government disputes Respondent’s 

relatively modest assets as accurate and argues that the underlying allegations accuse Duarte of 

taking at least 30 million Mexican pesos, worth more than one million United States dollars, into 

a personal trust for himself and his wife. Even without taking into consideration the hidden wealth 

alleged by the Government, Duarte’s financial condition suggests wealth sufficient to support 

himself should he attempt to evade apprehension. 

Mr. Duarte’s family connections weigh in favor of not finding a flight risk; his family 

primarily resides in the United States, and he and his wife have initiated immigration proceedings 

in effort to remain in the United States. Indeed, Respondent advanced evidence that he had 

disclosed his true address in his asylum proceedings, and was scheduled to appear for an interview 

with an immigration officer the week of his arrest; both facts tending to show that Duarte was not 

attempting to conceal his whereabouts from the United States Government but rather intends to 

make his life here in the United States. His many family members, who appeared at the hearing to 

offer their support and assets as collateralization on a bond, are U.S. citizens and residents.

2

Duarte argues that he has shown that he is not a flight risk: despite Corral’s multi-year 

1 Respondent additionally advanced evidence that his assets in Mexico have been frozen.

2 No witness was called to offer sworn testimony at the hearing. 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 7 of 8
8

efforts to charge and extradite him since his arrival to the United States, Duarte continues to live 

openly and cooperate with the government seeking to extradite him to Mexico. Because he has not 

fled yet, he argues, he has shown he is not a risk of flight. As another court has noted on similar 

facts and argument: “Maybe.” Matter of Extradition of Manrique, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1176 

(N.D. Cal. 2020), appeal dismissed sub nom. United States v. Toledo Manrique, No. 20-10089, 

2020 WL 2974858 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2020) (finding absence of pre-arrest flight insufficient 

evidence to carry extraditee’s burden on risk of flight). Duarte’s communications with the 

Government demonstrate his intention to challenge the extradition proceedings and the very real 

chance that if extradited, he may spend many years in jail. In sum, the circumstances have changed 

with his arrest, and the absence of evidence of earlier flight are not sufficient to meet his burden 

to show that he is not a risk of flight now.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby Ordered:

1. Duarte’s Motion for Release (ECF No. 14) is denied and the Government’s Motion for 

Detention Pending Extradition Proceedings (ECF No. 10) is granted. 

2. Respondent Cesar Horacio Duarte Jacquez shall remain in the custody of the United 

States Marshal pending further Order of the Court.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 14th day of September, 

2020.

____________________________________

LAUREN F. LOUIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2020 Page 8 of 8