Opinion ID: 795795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Martinez's Transfer to the United States

Text: 12 Martinez's counsel, in her opening, said to the jury that Martinez surrender[ed] to the authorities in the Dominican Republic to return to the United States to face trial. To rebut this suggestion that Martinez had come voluntarily to face the charges, the Government called an agent of the Dominican Republic's National Antidrug Division, who testified that Martinez was extradited to the United States. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked the agent if he was aware that Martinez had voluntarily consented to this extradition. 13 After the jury had rendered its verdicts, finding Martinez guilty of conspiracy to murder for hire and the firearms violation, the parties returned to the question whether Martinez's return had been compelled or voluntary. On June 8, 2004, a week before the date scheduled for sentence, Martinez submitted a letter, now asserting that he had been extradited from the Dominican Republic pursuant to an agreement limiting his sentence to 30 years. Attached to his letter were certified copies of (1) a statement by the Office of the Attorney General of the Dominican Republic, dated September 10, 2002 ( i.e., a few weeks after the United States issued its extradition request), which seemed to suggest that, pursuant to Dominican law, Martinez's sentence could not exceed 30 years; and (2) a decree of the President of the Dominican Republic, dated January 14, 2003, also suggesting that Martinez's sentence must be so limited. 14 The Government responded, submitting three documents. The first was the extradition treaty generally applicable to individuals extradited by the Dominican Republic, which contains no 30-year limitation. The second was a sworn declaration of an official of the United States Department of State, explaining the procedures extraditing nations normally follow when they seek to impose conditions on extradition, noting that no such procedures had been followed in this case, and asserting that the State Department had received no communications from the Dominican Republic regarding limitations on Martinez's sentence. The writer concluded that there was no sentence-limiting agreement between the United States and the Dominican Republic regarding Martinez. The final document was the sworn declaration of the Director of the Office of International Affairs of the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice, in which she explained that, to her knowledge, no United States official had received, prior to Martinez's transfer to the United States, any documentation indicating either an extradition-based agreement with the United States on Martinez's sentence or that the Dominican Republic had in fact extradited Martinez. She also noted that such agreements are unusual and, when they occur, they generally follow a certain procedure—which was not followed in this case. Her statement concluded that there was no sentence-limiting agreement regarding Martinez.