Court Opinion

ID: 9489564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:19:02.722714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:36.200299
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Baramdyka’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, his double jeopardy claim, and his claim on direct appeal that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence for time served in Chile have all either been waived or lack merit. My disagreement with the majority is limited only to the disposition of Count 8 in his habeas appeal.
I would vacate Baramdyka’s conviction and five-year probationary sentence because in my view, Chile has not waived its rights under the United States-Chilean extradition treaty, nor under the doctrines of specialty and dual criminality incorporated in that treaty, to preclude the United States from prosecuting Baramdyka on that count. Because, as a matter of treaty, the United States was barred from prosecuting Count 8, I respectfully dissent from part of the court’s opinion.
“As a matter of international comity, the doctrine of specialty prohibits the requesting nation from prosecuting the extradited individual for any offense other than that for which the surrendering state agreed to extradite.” United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1373 (9th Cir.1993) (citations, internal quotations omitted). In Securities Exchange and Commission v. Eurobond Exchange, Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334 (9th Cir.1994), this court held that the specialty defense is one of personal, rather than subject matter jurisdiction, and further held that a defendant who had failed to raise the defense in his answer had waived it. Id. at 1337. Even though the defendant had waived his own rights, this court nonetheless went on to consider whether the Swiss government, which had extradited the appellant in that case, would object to the institution of civil proceedings against him. Noting that “the protection [of the rule of specialty] exists only to the extent that the surrendering country wishes,” id. (quoting 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)), we took pains to observe that the Swiss had explicitly represented to the United States that they would not object if the United States instituted civil proceedings against the appellant. As a result, we were able safely to conclude that “as a matter of international comity a trial in this civil matter will not offend the Swiss.” Id. We further noted that in Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) the Supreme Court had observed that “[i]n the absence of an explicit agreement obligating the United States to protect the extradited person from the burdens of a civil suit, we believe that there is little potential that the *848extraditing state ... will view the mere conduct of a private civil trial as a breach of an obligation by the United States not to abuse the extradition process.” Id. at 525, 108 S.Ct. at 1951. Relying on Biard, we thus concluded that “[h]ere, there is no question of an abuse of the extradition process on the part of the United States where the Swiss have made known their belief that the Treaty does not apply to this action.” Eurobond, 13 F.3d at 1337.
This case is clearly distinguishable from Eurobond. Here, there is nothing in the record which suggests that Chile has surrendered its right to prevent the United States from prosecuting Baramdyka on Count 8. To the contrary, there is evidence in the record suggesting that Chile would in fact object: Chile specifically declined this country’s request to prosecute Baramdyka on Count 8. Accordingly, it is difficult to see how Chile will interpret the United States government’s decision to prosecute Baramdyka on Count 8, and this court’s decision to affirm that conviction, as anything other than “an abuse of the extradition process on the part of the United States,” Eurobond, 13 F.3d at 1337, and as a breach of the treaty.
This court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of ensuring the continued vitality of the specialty doctrine. In United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 938, 130 L.Ed.2d 883 (1995), we noted that “[t]he doctrine is based on principles of international comity: to ‘protect its own citizens in prosecutions abroad, the United States guarantees that it will honor limitations placed on prosecutions in the United States. Our concern is with ensuring that the obligations of the requesting nation are satisfied.” Id. at 1435 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).1 Similarly, in Najohn, supra, we noted that “preservation of the institution of extradition requires that the petitioning state live up to whatever promises it made in order to obtain extradition.” Najohn, 785 F.2d at 1422.
In my view, by failing to set aside Baram-dyka’s conviction on Count 8 we unnecessari-1y undermine these principles. Not only will we potentially inhibit the United States’ ability to “protect its own citizens in prosecutions abroad” in future cases, but we will also unnecessarily provide Chile and other countries with reason to demur in future cases in which the United States requests the extradition of other major drug dealers. Accordingly, I would grant Baramdyka’s section 2255 petition to set aside his conviction on Count 8.

. We emphasized in Andonian that "[a]n extradited person ... may be tried for a crime other than that for which he was surrendered, if the asylum country consents." Id. (citations, internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added by Andoni-an ).