Opinion ID: 196165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dual Criminality and Specialty.

Text: 24 Although the principles of dual criminality and specialty are closely allied, they are not coterminous. We elaborate below. 25 1. Dual Criminality. The principle of dual criminality dictates that, as a general rule, an extraditable offense must be a serious crime (rather than a mere peccadillo) punishable under the criminal laws of both the surrendering and the requesting state. See Brauch v. Raiche, 618 F.2d 843, 847 (1st Cir.1980). The current extradition treaty between the United States and Switzerland embodies this concept. See Treaty of Extradition, May 14, 1900, U.S.-Switz., Art. II, 31 Stat. 1928, 1929-30 (Treaty). 26 The principle of dual criminality does not demand that the laws of the surrendering and requesting states be carbon copies of one another. Thus, dual criminality will not be defeated by differences in the instrumentalities or in the stated purposes of the two nations' laws. See Peters v. Egnor, 888 F.2d 713, 719 (10th Cir.1989). By the same token, the counterpart crimes need not have identical elements. See Matter of Extradition of Russell, 789 F.2d 801, 803 (9th Cir.1986). Instead, dual criminality is deemed to be satisfied when the two countries' laws are substantially analogous. See Peters, 888 F.2d at 719; Brauch, 618 F.2d at 851. Moreover, in mulling dual criminality concerns, courts are duty bound to defer to a surrendering sovereign's reasonable determination that the offense in question is extraditable. See Casey v. Department of State, 980 F.2d 1472, 1477 (D.C.Cir.1992) (observing that an American court must give great deference to a foreign court's determination in extradition proceedings); United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 827 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir.1987) (similar), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 773, 98 L.Ed.2d 859 (1988). 27 Mechanically, then, the inquiry into dual criminality requires courts to compare the law of the surrendering state that purports to criminalize the charged conduct with the law of the requesting state that purports to accomplish the same result. If the same conduct is subject to criminal sanctions in both jurisdictions, no more is exigible. See United States v. Levy, 905 F.2d 326, 328 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1049, 111 S.Ct. 759, 112 L.Ed.2d 778 (1991); see also Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 312, 42 S.Ct. 469, 471, 66 L.Ed. 956 (1922) (It is enough [to satisfy the requirement of dual criminality] if the particular act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions.). 28 2. Specialty. The principle of specialty--a corollary to the principle of dual criminality, see United States v. Herbage, 850 F.2d 1463, 1465 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1027, 109 S.Ct. 1158, 103 L.Ed.2d 217 (1989)--generally requires that an extradited defendant be tried for the crimes on which extradition has been granted, and none other. See Van Cauwenberghe, 827 F.2d at 428; Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 783 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882, 107 S.Ct. 271, 93 L.Ed.2d 247 (1986). The extradition treaty in force between the United States and Switzerland embodies this concept, providing that an individual may not be prosecuted or punished for any offense committed before the demand for extradition, other than that for which the extradition is granted.... Treaty, Art. IX. 29 Enforcement of the principle of specialty is founded primarily on international comity. See United States v. Thirion, 813 F.2d 146, 151 (8th Cir.1987). The requesting state must live up to whatever promises it made in order to obtain extradition because preservation of the institution of extradition requires the continuing cooperation of the surrendering state. United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1009, 107 S.Ct. 652, 93 L.Ed.2d 707 (1986). Since the doctrine is grounded in international comity rather than in some right of the defendant, the principle of specialty may be waived by the asylum state. See id. 30 Specialty, like dual criminality, is not a hidebound dogma, but must be applied in a practical, commonsense fashion. Thus, obeisance to the principle of specialty does not require that a defendant be prosecuted only under the precise indictment that prompted his extradition, see United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435-36 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 938, 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995), or that the prosecution always be limited to specific offenses enumerated in the surrendering state's extradition order, see Levy, 905 F.2d at 329 (concluding that a Hong Kong court intended to extradite defendant to face a continuing criminal enterprise charge despite the court's failure specifically to mention that charge in the deportation order). In the same vein, the principle of specialty does not impose any limitation on the particulars of the charges lodged by the requesting nation, nor does it demand departure from the forum's existing rules of practice (such as rules of pleading, evidence, or procedure). See United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 874 F.2d 1402, 1414 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1032, 110 S.Ct. 1484, 108 L.Ed.2d 620 (1990); Thirion, 813 F.2d at 153; Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571, 583 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1016, 106 S.Ct. 1198, 89 L.Ed.2d 312 (1986). 31 In the last analysis, then, the inquiry into specialty boils down to whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the court in the requesting state reasonably believes that prosecuting the defendant on particular charges contradicts the surrendering state's manifested intentions, or, phrased another way, 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. See Andonian, 29 F.3d at 1435; United States v. Cuevas, 847 F.2d 1417, 1427-28 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1122, 103 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); United States v. Paroutian, 299 F.2d 486, 490-91 (2d Cir.1962). 32