Opinion ID: 751343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tse's extradition and the principle of specialty.

Text: 9 Tse contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismisss 14 and 15 because he was not extradited on those Counts. Tse urges that by trying him for offenses other than the one listed in the amended extradition request the district court violated the doctrine of specialty. The doctrine of specialty is grounded in international comity and generally requires that a requesting country not prosecute a defendant for offenses other than those for which extradition was granted. See U.S. v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 766 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1105, 116 S.Ct. 1322, 134 L.Ed.2d 474 (1996). A district court's interpretation of the principle[ ] ... [of] specialty traditionally involves a question of law and is, therefore, subject to plenary review in the court of appeals. Id. at 767. 10 The government contends that Hong Kong waived the rule of specialty by consenting to Tse's prosecution in the written note responding to the Consul General's request. The note from the Government Secretariat of Hong Kong stated: 11 [t]he offences of conspiracy to murder and attempted murder are both extraditable offences within the meaning of Article III of the Treaty and are offences established by the facts in respect of which extradition was granted within the meaning of Article XII of the Treaty. There accordingly can be no objection to ... Tse being prosecuted in the United States of America for the offences which comprise Counts 14, 15, and 16 of [the indictment], namely the offences of attempted murder of Chao Va Meng and Dai Keung and conspiracy to murder Chao Va Meng and Dai Keung. 12 Because the doctrine of specialty is concerned with comity rather than the rights of the defendant, the protection [of specialty] exists only to the extent that the surrendering country wishes. U.S. v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir.1986); accord Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 906 (2d Cir.1973). 3 If Hong Kong consented to the prosecution of Counts 14 and 15 Tse's position must fail. 13 Tse challenges the validity of Hong Kong's consent by suggesting that the letter is not from the proper authority because it is unsigned and does not indicate which department of the Government Secretariat prepared it. Moreover, he asserts that the Government Secretariat is not of consular status and has no authority to interpret the extradition treaty. Despite Tse's assertions the note appears to be an official response from the Hong Kong government, and this court has no power to require Hong Kong to follow a particular procedure in granting a diplomatic request. See Najohn, 785 F.2d at 1423 (Because defendant did not obtain a Swiss judgment prohibiting Swiss consent to further prosecution we are justified in regarding the statement of the [Swiss] executive branch as the last word of the Swiss government even though the Swiss government's consent to further prosecution was not court-approved like the order of extradition.). 14 Even if the diplomatic note from Hong Kong did not serve to waive the doctrine of specialty, the conduct underlying the attempted murder charges was sufficiently similar to that of the conspiracy charge to comport with the doctrine. The inquiry into specialty boils down to whether ... the surrendering state would deem the conduct for which the requesting state actually prosecutes the defendant as interconnected with (as opposed to independent from) the acts for which he was extradited. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d at 767; see also U.S. v. Sensi, 879 F.2d 888, 895-96 (D.C.Cir.1989) (What the doctrine of specialty requires is that the prosecution be based on the same facts as those set forth in the request for extradition.) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In the present case the facts used to prove the attempted murder charges were identical to those in the conspiracy charge. Both charges arose out of a single chain of events that culminated in the shootout on December 29, 1988. Article XII of the treaty between Hong Kong and the United States forbids prosecution for any offense other than an extraditable offense established by the facts in respect of which his extradition has been granted. 28 U.S.T. 227, 233. This language recognizes that a single set of facts can give rise to more than one extraditable offense and that the treaty allows prosecution for those offenses, even if they were not specifically mentioned in the extradition document. The prosecution of Tse for attempted murder did not violate the doctrine of specialty. 15