Opinion ID: 778749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Compliance With the Treaty

Text: 33 It is well established that, under the international principle of specialty, an extradited defendant may not be tried for a crime not enumerated in the applicable extradition treaty. See United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 424, 7 S.Ct. 234, 30 L.Ed. 425 (1886); United States v. Flores, 538 F.2d 939, 944 (2d Cir.1976). However, the question of whether an extradition treaty allows prosecution for a particular crime that is specified in the extradition request is a matter for the extraditing country to determine. See Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309, 316, 27 S.Ct. 539, 51 L.Ed. 816 (1907). In Johnson, in affirming the grant of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of a person who had been extradited by the Dominion of Canada for one offense but was imprisoned for a different offense that Canada had held was not an extraditable crime, the United States Supreme Court stated that [w]hether the crime came within the provision of the treaty was a matter for the decision of the Dominion authorities, and such decision was final by the express terms of the treaty itself. Id. at 316, 27 S.Ct. 539. Whether or not express terms in a treaty make the extraditing country's decision final as to whether an offense is extraditable, deference to that country's decision seems essential to the maintenance of cordial international relations. It could hardly promote harmony to request a grant of extradition and then, after extradition is granted, have the requesting nation take the stance that the extraditing nation was wrong to grant the request. 34 Thus, although courts of the United States have authority to determine whether an offense is an extraditable crime when deciding whether an accused should be extradited from the United States, see, e.g., Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 905-06 (2d Cir.1973), we interpret Johnson v. Browne to mean that our courts cannot second-guess another country's grant of extradition to the United States. Accord United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 827 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 773, 98 L.Ed.2d 859 (1988); McGann v. United States Board of Parole, 488 F.2d 39, 40 (3d Cir.1973) (per curiam), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 958, 94 S.Ct. 1974, 40 L.Ed.2d 309 (1974); see also Casey v. Department of State, 980 F.2d 1472, 1476-77 (D.C.Cir.1992); id. at 1477 ([A]t a minimum, Johnson means that an American court must give great deference to the determination of the foreign court in an extradition proceeding.). Giving the required deference, we will presume that if the extraditing country does not indicate that an offense specified in the request is excluded from the extradition grant, the extraditing country considers the offense to be a crime for which extradition is permissible. 35 In the present case, Costa Rica rendered its decision to extradite Campbell to face all of the charges set forth in the indictment. See Extradition Decree. The indictment included the charges that Campbell had committed offenses in violation of § 924(c). We must infer, therefore, that Costa Rica found the § 924(c) offenses to be extraditable crimes, and we may not second-guess that decision. 36