As matter of first impression, Ninth Circuit reviews
whether U.S. government must seek extradition of a suspect when it believes
that extradition is futile
Felipe de Jesus Corona‑Verbera (“Corona Verbera”) was
involved with the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the largest drug‑trafficking
operations in Mexico in the late 1980s. He allegedly designed a sophisticated,
200‑foot‑long tunnel between Agua Prieta, Mexico, and a warehouse in Douglas,
Arizona. That the tunnel was used for drug‑trafficking is evidenced by the
2,037 pounds of cocaine found at the same time. Corona Verbera was first
charged in 1990, and there were indictments in 1995 and 2001. He arrested in
Mexico in 2003, and extradited to the U.S. Eventually, after many delays, he
was convicted in 2006 of various drug‑related offenses, and now appeals.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms. One
of Corona Verbera’s challenges on appeal is that his Sixth Amendment right to a
speedy trial was violated because the U.S. government did not timely seek his
extradition from Mexico.
The Court agrees that an almost eight‑year delay between
indictment and arrest is presumptively prejudicial. However, the Court does not
find a duty upon the government to seek swift extradition.
“Whether or not our government is required formally to seek
extradition and execute an arrest warrant when it believes extradition is
futile is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. The Second Circuit
addressed the issue in United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773, 778 (2d Cir.
1988). In Blanco, the court held that seeking extradition of a defendant from
Colombia would have been futile and “[d]ue diligence does not require the
government to pursue goals that are futile.” Id. We agree with the Second
Circuit and hold that where our government has a good faith belief supported by
substantial evidence that seeking extradition from a foreign country would be
futile, due diligence does not require our government to do so.” [Slip op. 8]
Here, the government presented testimony by Agent Grant
Murray that Mexico did not extradite its citizens on drug charges until the
late 1990s. Thus, any attempts to seek Corona Verbera’s extradition would have
been futile. Even a defense expert agreed that Mexico did not extradite its
citizens between 1980 and 1996. The government did, however, enter him into the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer system.
Therefore, the Court concludes that “that the government
exercised due diligence in this case. Substantial evidence supports the
government’s assertion that extradition from Mexico on drug related charges
prior to 2002 was extremely rare. The futility of extradition, combined with
the government’s entry of Corona‑Verbera into NCIC and border stop computers,
and the airing of the Most Wanted and Unsolved Mysteries segments, indicate
that the government did not simply forget about Corona‑Verbera. Rather, after
extradition became more likely in 2002, the government obtained an arrest
warrant and diligently sought extradition. Consequently, the reason for delay
weighs against dismissal.” [Slip op. 10]
Finally, the Court rejects Corona Verbera’s argument that
his 18‑year sentence violates the terms of his extradition. The U.S. Ambassador
had assured Mexico that the U.S. would not seek a death sentence or life
imprisonment. Corona Verbera argues that, because he is 53 years old, the 18‑year
sentence is effectively a life sentence. Also, Articles 18 and 22 of the
Mexican Constitution prohibit such punishments. Such cruel and extreme
punishment violates the U.S.–Mexico Extradition Treaty.
The Court disagrees. “Neither our Ambassador’s letter nor
the Treaty itself mention any prohibition against a sentence imposing a precise
term of years. Likewise, no mention is made of “unusual or extreme punishment”
or any equivalent thereof. See Extradition Treaty Between the United States of
America and the United Mexican States, U.S.–Mex., May 4, 1978, 31 U.S.T. 5059.
Accordingly, the simple answer to Corona‑Verbera’s argument is that he was not
sentenced to life in prison. He was sentenced to eighteen years in prison, with
credit for more than four years served. Moreover, his projected release date is
at the age of sixty‑four.” [Slip op. 18]
Citation: United States v. Corona‑Verbera, No. 06‑10538
(9th Cir. December 7, 2007).
**** Patrick Michael Megaro is a partner at Halscott Megaro PA. His primary areas of practice are criminal defense, criminal appeals, post-conviction relief, civil appeals, and civil rights litigation. Attorney Profile at: https://solomonlawguild.com/patrick-michael-megaro; Attorney News at: https://attorneygazette.com/patrick-megaro%2C-esq#ab17a387-a757-4c0f-bc37-81f556fd15ea
