Extradition
| Pages | 22-24 |
22 Volume 20, April–June 2014 international law update
© 2014 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
EXTRADITION
F C
U.S.
UK
,
F A
Alexander Hilton is a U.S. citizen who studied
in Scotland from September 2009 through March
2011. Authorities in the UK charged him with
attempted murder after he spiked a bottle of wine
with methanol and encouraged a fellow student
to drink it. e fellow student survived thanks to
medical intervention, but suers from ill eects to
this day.
In October 2012, the British Embassy
transmitted an extradition request. In February
2013, the U.S. led a complaint in the U.S. District
Court in Massachusetts, seeking an arrest warrant
for Hilton and his extradition.
Hilton claimed that he is suering from
mental health problems, and extradition to the UK
would put him at risk for suicide. Furthermore,
the Scottish jury system only requires a simple
majority for a conviction, which would violate his
U.S. constitutional rights.
e magistrate judge issued a Certicate of
Extraditability (see 18 U.S.C. Section 3184), and
Hilton petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus (see
28 U.S.C. Section 2241). e District Court
denied Hilton’s petition, and this appeal ensued.
e U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
arms. Hilton’s challenge to the conditions that await
him in Scotland is barred by the rule of non-inquiry.
So is his claim that the Scottish jury system allows
simple majority jury verdicts. While the Secretary of
State may consider humanitarian grounds in making
extradition determinations, this Court will not bar
extradition on the grounds presented by Hilton.
e Court rst explains how the federal
Extradition Statute works, and how the Rule of
Non-Inquiry applies.
e Extradition Statute, 18 U.S.C. Section
3184, establishes a two-step procedure which
divides responsibility between a judicial ocer and
the Secretary of State. After a formal complaint is
led, the judicial ocer must determine whether
there is an extradition treaty between the U.S.
and the relevant foreign country, and whether the
crime is covered by that treaty. 18 U.S.C. Section
3184. If both questions are answered armatively,
the judicial ocer issues a warrant for the arrest
of the individual sought for extradition (“relator”).
e judicial ocer must then conduct a hearing
to determine whether the evidence is sucient to
sustain the charge under provisions of the treaty.
If yes, the judicial ocer must certify to the
Secretary of State that a warrant for the surrender
of the individual may issue. e judicial ocer will
provide copies of all testimony and evidence from
the hearing to the Secretary of State.
e Secretary of State has discretionary
authority whether to extradite, and may decline
to surrender the individual on grounds such as
humanitarian and foreign policy considerations.
See Section 3186.
e “rule of non-inquiry” limits the role of
the judiciary in the extradition process. Courts
must not evaluate the fairness and humaneness
of another country’s criminal justice system. is
rule serves international comity by letting political
ocials make foreign policy judgments in deciding
extradition requests.
e Court then turns to the issue of mental
illness and whether the increased risk of suicide
violates Hilton’s Fifth Amendment right to due
process.
“Hilton argues that his extradition to Scotland
would result in an increased risk of suicide and
would thereby involve deliberate indierence on
the part of the United States ocials authorizing
the extradition. Hilton’s argument fails under the
rule of non-inquiry. Hilton emphasizes that doubts
about the ability of the United States authorities
to keep him from committing suicide during
the period leading up to the Secretary’s decision
whether to extradite substantiates his claim that
To continue reading
Request your trial