Finally, the Respondent is accused by Mexico of criminal association (conspiracy) in violation of Mexican law. Respondent urges that this Court decline extradition based upon a "humanitarian exception" in that he is likely to be tortured based upon his alleged relationship to the Arellano-Felix brothers. Emilio Ricardo Valds Mainero, (a) "Len" o "Ricardo Gonzlez Len", detenido el 30 de septiembre de 1996, en San Diego, California, por posesin ilegal de armas y de estupefacientes. 3184, Ward v. Rutherford, 921 F.2d 286, 289 (D.C.Cir.1990) and Rule 74 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court of the Southern District of California. (2) Criminal Association between 1994 and September 14, 1996 in violation of Article 164, Paragraph 1 in accordance with Article 13, Section II, of the Penal Code for the Federal District;[11] and. 253 (1910); Rice v. Ames,180 U.S. 371, 21 S. Ct. 406, 45 L. Ed. [37] Respondent criticizes Mexico for not filing this set of documents. [48] Authority for this proposition is gathered from dicta in some case law in that there is no direct authority for this proposition. *291 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michael Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Valdez Mainero. [44] There are some inconsistencies in the testimony when various statements are compared, but these are not significant differences affecting this analysis. There is no legal support for a judicially created "humanitarian exception" in an extradition proceeding. Mexico does acknowledge that there is an investigation ongoing concerning the actions of General Rebollo and his associates, and that the investigations include the "possible" unlawful detention of suspects. Emilio Valdez passed away Saturday, August 31, 2019. at 952. On the other hand, the formal statements of Soto and Cruz have significant detail concerning the personal background of the witnesses and the specifics of the offenses and related matters. The Treaty between the United States and Mexico calls for probable cause to be measured by the standards established in the requesting country. [16] Habeas corpus was subsequently granted, Kin-Hong v. United States,957 F. Supp. The document is not authenticated. Get free summaries of new Southern District of California US Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 23. Valdez was ordered detained following arraignment. "Chef" ("Soto") In his September 27, 1996 declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Soto recalled an incident in which Valdez, Ramon Arellano Felix and other members of his organization met at a house rented by Valdez in Mexico City. January 1997: Hodin Gutierrez Rico, a . [33] As such, it is argued that the statements were not credible, nor should they support extradition in this case. Support for the reliability of Soto's "recantation" (and by inference the other recantations) is offered by Respondent in an unsigned and uncertified declaration of First Seargent Vicente Ruiz Martinez, submitted on June 30, 1997 at the extradition hearing. In fact, the prevailing authorities are clear that: The decision to honor a request for extradition is "political", not "judicial". November 4, 1997. The right of confrontation,[46] specifically, has been held inapplicable, as have the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Respondent's request for discovery is denied. In this regard, Respondent cites Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Treaty. Respondent's role is alleged to have included, among other things, the planning and carrying out of assassinations of people perceived to be enemies of the AFO, including rival drug traffickers and law enforcement officials. Curreri v. Vice, 77 F.2d 130, 132 (9th Cir.1935); Eain v. Wilkes, 641 F.2d 504, 510 (7th Cir.1981), cert. Respondent also offers, as evidence to defeat probable cause, recantations by Cruz and Soto relative to the earlier statements[36]. The analysis is also unnecessary in light of the Ninth Circuit order of October 2, 1997 ordering an en banc hearing in the case. Mexico has filed the videotapes, the evidence concerning Respondent's statements regarding the 1997 abduction of Alejandro Hodoyan and the genesis of the March 3, 1997 Declaration by Alejandro Hodoyan, as well as the statements by Alejandro to U.S. agents. The magistrate judge need only determine whether there is competent evidence to justify holding the Respondent for trial, not whether the evidence is sufficient to justify conviction. 1274 (1913); Glucksman v. Henkel,221 U.S. 508, 512, 31 S. Ct. 704, 55 L. Ed. In the proceeding before this Court, the Republic of Mexico (hereafter Mexico), through the United States government, seeks the extradition of United States citizen, EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO, alleged to have committed crimes in Mexico. The . The request for discovery regarding Miranda was also submitted in RESPONDENTS SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY filed June 26, 1997 in Case 96-1828 (Docket No. Respondent had indicated that a recantation by Vasquez would be filed, but no such document has been offered in evidence in this case. Where a prior statement is shown to be coerced and the indicia of reliability is on the recantation, then the subsequent statement negating the existence of probable cause is germane in an extradition proceeding. [21] The real issue in this proceeding is whether or not there is probable cause to establish that Respondent was one of the perpetrators. Mexico also takes the position that the statement is inaccurate and not properly certified or executed. Entre los jvenes reclutados por el narcotrfico mexicano se encentraban Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y . 3190 having been properly and legally certified and authenticated by Bruce A. Beardsley, principal counsular officer of the U.S. in Mexico. According to the United States' submissions and consistent therewith at the hearings, Mexico seeks extradition of the Respondent for the Mexican charges identified above. [43] The balance of the evidence, as noted, does not lead to the conclusion that Alejandro was under duress, nor, that the November 30, 1996 deposition is unreliable. Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 635 (2d Cir.1980). aka "Cachuchas" In his September 30, 1996, declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Gilberto Vasquez Culebro, aka "Cachuchas", (hereinafter Vasquez), declared that Valdez was a member of the AFO and that, in March, 1995, Valdez was in the company of the other AFO members, including, Eduardo Leon, aka "Abulon", Contreras, and Reyes. 2D1.1 and reduced by two levels the offense level applicable to many drug trafficking offenses. No further "recantation" exists, although he does "appeal that accusation" (the charges brought against him are on the basis of the statements). Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. De recuperar la libertad, en Mxico le esperan una sentencia de 22 aos de crcel por narcotrfico . The Court denied the motion.[3]. Mexico's evidence does support a finding of probable cause with regard to the criminal association charge. [22] The individuals related to this case are often referred to in the evidence by nicknames. A few seconds passed and then he saw the white Volkswagen speed out of the parking lot. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Respondent") [1] is accused by Mexico of having been involved with or committing various crimes in violation of . Neely v. Henkel,180 U.S. 109, 21 S. Ct. 302, 45 L. Ed. 3190. Matter of Extradition of Koskotas, 127 F.R.D. Mexico contests the reliability of these recantations asserting that they are self serving, lacking in reliability and inadmissable as contradictory evidence. The videotapes clearly demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor. The signs of injury included 16 irregularly circular scars, 17 circular scars and 3 small scars on the chest as well as a hematoma to the upper base of the nose and a circular bruise on the right chin. at 1450-1451. The two cars stopped in the village of San Mateo Atenco. 526/2019. Neely v. Henkel,180 U.S. 109, 21 S. Ct. 302, 45 L. Ed. The authority of a magistrate judge to conduct the proceedings is provided by 18 U.S.C. [41] All of these individuals are described as "prisoners" in the statement. The charge related to the 1994 event has been abandoned. Valdez and Martinez then fled the Holiday Inn in the white Volkswagen. Based on the above evidence, this Court finds that there is probable cause to believe that Valdez committed the crime of criminal conspiracy as alleged in the extradition request. Concerning the murder and firearms charge, it is alleged that on April 9, 1996, at approximately 9:30 p.m., in the restaurant at the Holiday Inn in Toluca, Mexico, Jesus Gallardo Vigil, aka "El Bebe", (hereinafter "Gallardo"), and Jesus Sanchez Angulo (hereinafter "Sanchez") were shot and killed by Respondent and Fabian Martinez Gonzalez, aka "Tiburon", (hereinafter "Martinez"). 1983). He stated that Valdez and Martinez used a white colored vehicle and that they used another car for protection. The testimony of Miranda, taken by Assistant United States Attorney Curiel, corroborates the substance of the evidence collected at the *1228 scene and statements by non-involved witnesses. The others drove in a white Volkswagen. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. [12] Statement of Gerardo Cruz Pacheco to an agent of the Federal Prosecutor on October 12, 1996. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Decision Denying Bail (see footnote 1), the Court finds that the offense of carrying a firearm exclusive to the Army, Navy and Air Force lacks dual criminality and petitioner fails in its burden regarding extradition on that matter.[18]. Valdez relies on Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 78 (2d Cir.1960), cert. ("Cruz") In his October 12, 1996 statement, Cruz declared before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor that Valdez, Martinez and, Fabian Partiday, aka "Domingo," described to him crimes that they had committed, the firearms they used to commit the crimes, and the numerous cities in Mexico, in which they had committed crimes in furtherance of the goals of the AFO. Background. Los narcojuniors reales de Tijuana. Nobody threatens my brother because the moron who does it, dies."[12]. (7) Evidence which, in accordance with the laws of the requested party, would justify the apprehension and commitment for the trial of the person sought if the offense had been committed there, (i.e., probable cause). A great number of questions exist, and many questions remain unanswered in this case. By Molly Moore. Emilio Valdez Mainero (Valdez) and Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios (Hodoyan) were certified as extraditable to Mexico on charges of murder and criminal association with the Arellano Felix drug trafficking organization (AFO). Tambin se encontraban en este grupo Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. Ultimately, the United States sought to stay the proceedings for an additional ninety (90) day period. 3184. Miranda stated that the murder took place the first part of April 1996, at the Holiday Inn in Toluca. Miranda also declared that Valdez had told him he and Fabian Reyes Partida, aka "Domingo", (hereinafter Reyes) had assassinated Jesus Romero Magana because he was investigating Valdez' criminal activity. The United States filed certified documents in support of the extradition request at various times, the first of which was on December 4, 1996. Recanting statements are relevant in these proceedings as they affect probable cause. As set forth in Footnote 26, the rights normally available in a criminal trial are not available in this proceeding. Specifically, Respondent asserts that evidence included in the second extradition packet should not be received or considered by the Court. Emilio Valdez Mainero seemed an appropriately upper-tier husband, but he too allegedly found employment in the Arellano Felix organization, recruiting 'young assassins who belong to Tijuana's . [9] See ORDER DIRECTING THE FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE filed October 23, 1997 (Docket No. 371. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Southern District of California US Federal District Court. The Secretary of State makes the ultimate decision on whether to surrender the Respondent. "El Lobo" tambin fue capturado en los Estados Unidos junto con el tijuanense Emilio Valdez Mainero "El Radioloco", ambos extraditados a Mxico en enero de 1998 y tambin remitidos a Almoloya de Jurez. Mexico also cites the medical examination of Soto following the September 27, 1996 statements concluding that there were no traces of any recent physical wounds. Under United States law, a conspiracy is an agreement among two or more persons to commit a crime. The Supplemental Complaint charged Respondent with criminal association under Article 164, paragraph 1 and Article 13, section 2 of the Penal Code for the Federal District. 96-1828 M, in The Matter of the Extradition of Alejandro Hodoyan Palacios, Docket No. ``When they want to do a job _ when they want to bring down the hammer _ they can do it with brilliance and genius, Lupsha said. The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. No precise authority is offered in regard to this premise. In the Matter of the Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. C. Fausto Soto Miller, aka "Chef" In his September 27, 1996[27] declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Fausto Soto Miller, "Chef," (hereinafter *1221 "Soto") stated that he was aware of the personal problems between Valdez and Gallardo, arising out of a threat with a firearm against Gabriel Valdez made by Gallardo. [25] Miranda testified based upon his acquaintance with the individuals described in his statement, his personal presence at various of the events and circumstances described and conversations with the involved individuals. This resulted in the arrest of Valdez on September 30, 1996. October 21, 1996. Respondent also argues that Alejandro was abducted in the Spring of 1997 by representatives of Mexico which corroborates Mexico's alleged use of inappropriate force and means to secure evidence in this case. denied, 405 U.S. 989, 92 S. Ct. 1251, 31 L. Ed. The court has jurisdiction over the Respondents if they are before the court. 96mg 1828(AJB). See footnote 10. Publicado: 5/6/2021 7:10:25 PM. Alejandro, who is the brother of extraditee Alfredo Miguel hodoyan Palacios aka "Lobo",[28] stated that his brother told him that Valdez and Martinez had participated in the murder of Gallardo at the Holiday Inn Hotel in Toluca. Recanting statements are relevant as they affect probable cause, but a showing that the prior statement is coerced and that indicia of reliability is on a subsequent recantation is the appropriate point of analysis on this issue. The admissibility of Miranda's statement, as taken by Assistant United States Attorney Curiel, was previously discussed. 30), he requests discovery regarding the statement by Miranda. The personal notes and translation were offered to corroborate the declaration and the explanatory evidence with regard to Alejandro's testimony. [11] More fully identified as the "Criminal Code in local matters and for all the Republic in federal matters.". [13] The diplomatic note related to the initial firearms charge[14] and the criminal association charge. On September 30, 1996, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of *292 California, acting on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, presented to the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, a complaint and a formal extradition request for Emilio Valdez Mainero (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Extraditee"). The papers have provided a behind-the-scenes look at an assassination already widely believed to be the work of the Arellanos. It was at one of the celebrations that they met Emilio Valdez Mainero, the son of a colonel who was once a member of the presidential guards.Later they contacted Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, who was the son of a wealthy businessman from the city.Alfredo had been born and studied in USA, so it was easier for the drug to pass through the border without generating suspicion. Defense counsel was provided for Mr. Soto for purposes of his testimony. Fed.R.Evid. The papers have provided a behind-the-scenes look at an assassination already widely believed to be the work of the Arellanos. In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. In response to this evidence, Valdez offers statements of Gabriel Valdez, Marci Ramirez Marin de Gonzalez and Eva Marin viuda de Pena. The Department of Justice shall prepare a certification consistent with this memorandum as required by 18 U.S.C. Magistrate No. Background. As a result, the accomplice argument does not negate reliability in this instance, nor does it defeat admissibility. 124 F.3d 1186, 1997 WL 624797 (9th Cir.). Another Mexican, questioned by prosecutors while in the intensive care unit of a San Diego hospital, said the hit on the 50-year-old Ibarra was planned carefully by Arellano organization members. California. Respondent asserts that the Treaty in this instance is invalid due to changed circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that the United States no longer honors the treaty or that its purpose and intent are no longer served. "El Lobo" tambin fue capturado en los Estados Unidos junto con el tijuanense Emilio Valdez Mainero "El Radioloco", ambos extraditados a Mxico en enero de 1998 y tambin remitidos a Almoloya de Jurez. 3184, et seq. [32] Respondent also argues that the statements of Francisco Cabrera Castro and Edgar Alejandro Gonzalez Gonzalez offered by Mexico were also "extracted" by torture. Ms tarde contactaron a Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, quien era hijo de un empresario acaudalado de la ciudad. An analysis of whether this Court should enact a humanitarian exception into foreign extradition begins with a recognition of the rule of non-inquiry. LOS NARCOJUNIORS. *1220 At approximately 9:30 p.m., Cruz, who was about twenty meters away from the entrance of the Holiday Inn heard several firearms shots. At the time, Emilio Valdez Mainero, a member of the Arellano Flix cartel, said in a bugged conversation with a inmate-turned-informant that he wanted to kill Curiel. They are under a compelled setting initiated by Mexican judicial authorities (as opposed to a self directed recantation by the declarants) and are no greater than a plea of not guilty when analyzed to similar proceedings under United States law. The Court concludes that each of the crimes for which extradition is requested by Mexico are among those specified in the Treaty but that only Criminal Association and First Degree Murder are analogous to United States law. The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition. Esta clula del crtel de Tijuana volvi a la luz por la nueva temporada de la serie de Netflix Specifically, Respondent sought "all witness statements submitted in General Gutierrez Rebollo's case to determine whether or not there is additional relevant testimony." Mr. Vasquez states that the individuals acted suspiciously and carried long and short range firearms. It is also alleged that Respondent was in charge of cocaine and marijuana shipments for the AFO and as a leading member of the organization, was responsible for assigning code names to the other members. In the Ruiz statement, it appears that Soto was arrested at least no later than September 15, 1996. Hearsay evidence is admissible on behalf of the Respondent to establish the "obliteration" of probable cause. The Extradition Hearing was continued on several occasions after the January 14, 1997 filing, with the consent of the parties, to allow for further preparation and response to the evidence. If the drafters of the Treaty had intended the judicial officer to consider the admissibility and weight of the evidence under the law of the requesting party (i.e. Peryea v. United States,782 F. Supp. Defense counsel was provided for Mr. Cruz Vasquez identifies himself as a member of the AFO and states that in March, 1996, he had several visitors to his home, including Respondent Valdez, Martinez, and co-extraditee Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. According to testimony given to . Each "recantation" is essentially a denial of the former statement(s) in their entirety and an allegation of torture and abuse at the hands of the Mexican authorities. Under *1216 United States law, the standard of probable cause is whether there is any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty. [48] Evidence submitted in this regard includes the "recantations" regarding the use of torture to extract statements from the witnesses as well as the alleged abduction of Alejandro. 18 U.S.C. In Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1107 (5th Cir. The date of production for the photographic evidence was set for November 5, 1997[9] and later extended with properly authenticated and certified originals being filed on December 1, 1997. But federal prosecutors said that the information is valuable for this case and others, and that the mens credibility is proved by the way their stories fit together. There is no corroborating evidence regarding the source, however. Valdez also faces charges of arranging the sale of a kilogram of heroin to a fellow inmate through friends outside prison. "The Secretary of State has sole discretion to refuse extradition on humanitarian grounds because of the procedures or treatment that await the surrendered fugitive." [46] Respondent's repeated request to confront and cross-examine Mexico's witnesses under Fed.R.Crim.P. Cruz declared that in April 1996, he received a message from Martinez instructing him to meet at the Glorieta del Angel at 6:00 p.m. At that location, Cruz met with Valdez, Martinez and Contreras. In re Petition of France for Extradition of Sauvage,819 F. Supp. Article 11, itself, cites that urgency to arrest and detain an individual supports this initial procedure. The allegations of torture supported by some of the self serving statements of the witnesses and some factual conflicts (i.e. 18 U.S.C. The March 3, 1997 date is taken from the first line of the document. [2] An analysis under Parretti v. United States, 112 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir.1997) decided May 6, 1997 and amended August 29, 1997, well after the issuance of the provisional arrest warrant in this case, is unnecessary given the timely filing of the certified documents. The power to make treaties is constitutionally invested in the executive branch of the United States government. Treaties, by design, live well beyond the administration involved in their enactment. 3184, et seq., in order to extradite the Respondent, the United States, on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, must establish that: (1) The judicial officer is authorized to conduct extradition proceedings; (2) The court has jurisdiction over the respondent; (3) The applicable treaty is in full force and effect; (4) The crimes for which surrender is sought are included within the terms of the treaty; and. Gonzalo Curiel was made by Emilio Valdez Mainero in a bugged conversation with a convicted cocaine trafficker and government informant . Entre los jvenes reclutados por el narcotrfico mexicano se encentraban Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. Martinez told Cruz that he would receive some money if Cruz would hold the 38 Super and the 9mm guns that they had used to kill Gallardo and Sanchez. Appellant appealed the habeas corpus denial to the Second Circuit. This finding could be based upon the testimony of Miranda and Alejandro, alone. [5] This Declaration is filed in Case No. Emilio Valdez Mainero was a boyhood buddy Mr. Hodoyan chose years later to be the godfather at his first daughter's baptism. Article 11, Paragraph 3, provides that the provisional arrest "shall be terminated" if the United States does not receive the formal request for extradition and the necessary documents specified in Article 10 within 60 days after the detainee's apprehension. The principle argument regarding changed circumstances is the existence of the practice of torture by Mexican authorities. For the reasons set forth in footnote 32 an extended analysis of the recantation is not set forth, nor is the recantation viewed any differently than those of Cruz and Soto. Article 3 of the Treaty says, in part: In this case, that means as defined in federal law. Informacin de El Universal. Gerardo Cruz Pacheco, a former presidential security guard, told Mexican officials he helped the gunmen escape after the Holiday Inn murder by forming a wall of cars as they drove off. But the deal fell apart when the other inmate couldn't pay the promised . En esta temporada podemos ver lo que pasa despus de la cada de Miguel ngel Flix Gallardo, interpretado por Diego Luna. 39); and, SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER DIRECTING THE UNITED STATES TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE filed September 12, 1997 (Docket No. [33] On June 19, 1997, Respondent filed a REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY requesting, among other things, that the Court "order the government to turn over any other relevant information which might help the detainee explain the `evidence' lodged against him" (Docket No. This is part of the framework created by case law in these proceedings. Probable cause exists to believe that the Respondent committed the offenses of homicide and criminal conspiracy as charged against him in Mexico. The extradition proceeding is not a criminal trial nor is Respondent entitled to the rights available in a criminal trial at common law. [8] Additional written argument was entertained from counsel and submissions in this regard were completed on October 14, 1997. There is no prohibition against hearsay in the extradition context because the Federal Rules of Evidence, which proscribe hearsay, do not apply to extradition. 956 (1922). A Supplemental Complaint was filed and Respondent was arraigned thereon on October 16, 1996. 568 (S.D.N.Y.1979). Ante una posible enfermedad terminal, Benjamn Arellano Flix pretende obtener una liberacin humanitaria, y no pagar la pena de 25 aos de prisin en Estados Unidos. Los narcojuniors estudiaban en colegios particulares y pertenecan a familias acomodadas. This element was not challenged by the Respondent. The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. Gonzalo Curiel was made by Emilio Valdez Mainero in a bugged conversation with a convicted cocaine trafficker and government informant . In Gallina, commissioner found the appellant subject to the extradition in Italy. Under that rule, "an extraditing court will generally not inquire into the procedures or treatment which await a surrendered fugitive in the requesting country." Valdez was a 2016 graduate of Warren Mott High School who had moved to Pontiac. In addition to being signed by extraditee's father, other family members similarly signed attesting to the authenticity and veracity of the document. is indoor ice skating safe during covid; most common super bowl final scores; lynette woodard spouse; reelfoot lake fishing guides; emilio valdez mainero. Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 635, 636 (2d Cir.1980). BATTAGLIA, United States Magistrate Judge. The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. 1989), cert. The recantations are little more than self-serving declarations at the time of "arraignment" on the charges based upon the statements given to the federal prosecutor. the arrest dates of Soto and Cruz), is unpersuasive as offered to totally obliterate probable cause under a Contreras analysis. Miranda added that the motivation for assassination was that Gallardo had threatened Gabriel Valdez Mainero (Emilio Valdez Mainero's brother) with a firearm.[26]. [8] See RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF EXTRADITION filed September 29, 1997 (Docket No. Hodoyan haba estudiado en una . [15] The later supplementation of the record and the supplementation of Mexico's request for extradition, with additional charges, are not inconsistent with the Treaty or its provisions. 33. [19] Respondent's requests for cross examination of Petitioner's witnesses pursuant to Fed. ``But it only makes the laxity which we see daily _ that should be viewed with greater and greater suspicion..
Examples Of Romanticism In Modern Day,
Effie Dreamgirls Monologue,
Power Bi Difference Between Two Dates,
Articles E
