Opinion ID: 781597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional Weaknesses in Appellees' Construction

Text: 50
51 First, in light of the history of the Treaty and the overall context in which it was created, we conclude that the Treaty's reference to the law of the Requested State does not in fact indicate that the parties expected to incorporate the doctrine of foreign discoverability. Treaties, like other contracts, are to be read in the light of the conditions and circumstances existing at the time they were entered into, with a view to effecting the objects and purposes of the States thereby contracting. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 262, 104 S.Ct. 1776, 1788, 80 L.Ed.2d 273 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (internal quotation omitted). Words in a treaty are to be taken in their ordinary meaning as understood by the contracting parties and should not be construed in an artificial or special sense impressed upon them by local law unless such a restricted sense is clearly intended. Id. at 263, 104 S.Ct. at 1788. The MLAT was signed in Quebec in March of 1985. At that time, the notion of foreign discoverability as an implicit requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 had received very little attention in the lower federal courts. While at least one district court had adopted such a rule in the context of a private litigant seeking assistance by way of a letter of request under section 1782, see In re the Court of the Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa, 88 F.R.D. 75 (E.D.Pa.1980), no circuit court had yet fully embraced the concept. 52 There was little development in the law after the negotiations and signing of the Treaty in Quebec. Between the Treaty's signing in 1985 and its entry into force in January 1990, only this Circuit read a foreign discoverability requirement into section 1782. See Trinidad and Tobago, 848 F.2d 1151, 1156 (11th Cir.1988) and Lo Ka Chun v. Lo To, 858 F.2d 1564, 1566 (11th Cir.1988). While these Eleventh Circuit decisions clearly set forth this Circuit's law with respect to letter requests and letters rogatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, the almost complete absence in the entire federal courts of any indication of a foreign discoverability requirement as an implicit part of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 makes it a very dubious proposition to suggest that the governments of the United States and Canada intended to subject all Treaty requests to such a limitation. 7 53 If there were any doubt about our conclusion that the parties did not intend to subject Canadian treaty requests to a foreign discoverability requirement, the Technical Analysis provides significant clarity. And, as the executive branch's official construction of the Treaty, this analysis is entitled to significant deference by this Court. Although not conclusive, the meaning attributed to treaty provisions by the Government agencies charged with their negotiation and enforcement is entitled to great weight. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 184, 102 S.Ct. 2374, 2379, 72 L.Ed.2d 765 (1982). The Introduction section of the Technical Analysis discusses the reasons for the creation of the Treaty and notes the fact that, in the past, the Canadian courts would refuse many requests for assistance by law enforcement officials from the United States because the information sought was for investigative purposes prior to the initiation of formal criminal charges. In so noting, the negotiators recognized that this created unequal treatment since the United States provided assistance [to Canada] without regard to whether the case was pre- or postindictment. Technical Analysis at 1. In an endnote, the negotiators elaborated that [a]ssistance is available for a foreign country under 28 U.S.C. 1782 without regard to whether the action has already been filed. Id. at 26 n. 2. Here, the negotiating team specifically discussed requests by Canada under section 1782 and understood section 1782 to allow for assistance without regard to lack of discoverability in Canada of compelled testimony prior to the actual filing of criminal charges. These statements in the Technical Analysis, constituting formal executive branch interpretations, all but foreclose any argument that the parties intended to subject the Attorney General's petitions, made honoring a Treaty request, to a foreign discoverability requirement for letters rogatory and letters of request. 54
55 Prior cases involving similar language in other treaties further illustrate that vague and general references to the law of the Requested State in treaties must be carefully construed in the context of all the language of the Treaty and cannot simply be read in mechanical fashion as the appellees contend. This Circuit in Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Pen, 993 F.2d 824, 829 (11th Cir.1993), dealt with similar language in an extradition treaty between the United States and Canada. In Martin, Canada failed to seek Martin's extradition for over seventeen years. Recognizing that there is no direct constitutional right to a speedy extradition, Martin argued that language in the treaty incorporated United States law, including the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, by providing that the person whose extradition is sought shall have the right to use all remedies and recourses provided by the law of the Requested State. Id. The court rejected Martin's attempt to read the language to incorporate either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment, i.e., the substantive law of the Requested State. Id. Accord Murphy v. United States, 199 F.3d 599, 603 (2d Cir.1999) (construing same language not to entitle a fugitive to the constitutional protections that underlie a United States statute of limitations). The Ninth Circuit has reached similar conclusions in two separate cases. That court rejected the argument that the treaty provision entitles the fugitive to invoke the protections that the requested state's laws afford defendants in domestic prosecutions. Matter of Extradition of Kraiselburd, 786 F.2d 1395, 1398 (9th Cir.1986) (Kennedy, J.); Kamrin v. United States, 725 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir.1984). 56 A district court opinion from 2000 explains the reasoning behind interpreting this type of treaty language as failing to incorporate wholesale the substantive law of the requested state. In Elcock v. United States, 80 F.Supp.2d 70, 77 & n. 10 (E.D.N.Y.2000), the extradition treaty provided that [e]xcept where this Treaty provides, the law of the Requested State shall be applicable with respect to provisional arrest, extradition, and transit. The court acknowledged that this reference to the `law of the Requested State' in connection with `extradition' might be read to suggest that the Treaty incorporates the substantive domestic law of the Requested State into the extradition provision of the Treaty. Id. at 77 n. 10. But, looking to ratification history, the court concluded that the treaty provision referred to the Requested State's procedures rather than its substantive law. Id. The court also noted that United States courts have consistently ruled that similar provisions in other treaties do not import substantive constitutional or statutory protections into the extradition context, citing Murphy, Martin, Kraiselburd, and Kamrin. The court concluded that: 57 Had the parties intended that each would apply its own [substantive] law in determining whether the requested extradition would violate double jeopardy principles, they could have clearly stated as much.... In the absence of such a provision, a court may not simply rely on the meanings the terms of the treaty have in the context of domestic law. 58 Id. at 77. 59 We recognize that all of these extradition cases involve factual scenarios and treaties that are quite distinguishable from the case we decide today. But, given that the seven appellees in this case are relying upon similar language to make the same type of argument that has been consistently rejected, we find these cases instructive. These cases make clear that vague and general treaty language referring to the law of the Requested State should not be read in a mechanical fashion and automatically interpreted as incorporating the substantive law of the Requested State, but should rather be read in full context of the purposes and objectives of the Treaty as a whole. 8 60