Extradition

• Pages: 2-6

58 Volume 22, October–December 2016 international law update

© 2016 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

EXTRADITION

In case of extradition request from

Mexico for a 2006 murder in Mexico,

Sixth Circuit considers whether statute

of limitations applies

Samuel Francisco Solano Cruz was to host a

goat roasting party for the municipal leaders of

Santa Maria Natividad, a village in the State of

Oaxaca, Mexico, and for the members of the town

band on New Year’s Day 2006. He went to a New

Year’s Eve party outside the local municipal hall

to deliver the invitations. Shortly after he arrived

he was approached by a man screaming “son

of a bitch!” and who then shot him six times. A

bystander, Antolin Cruz Reyes, who came to Solano

Cruz’s help, was shot as well. e murderer then got

in his truck and ed the scene. Both men died from

their wounds.

Avelino Cruz Martinez, then a United States

permanent resident (and a citizen since 2010) was

accused by Solano Cruz’s family of the murders.

Within two weeks of the shooting, Solano Cruz’s

widow and parents met with Cruz Martinez’s wife

and brother, who lived in Santa Maria Natividad,

before a town clerk and signed an agreement stating

that Cruz Martinez had “committed the homicide.”

e agreement also provided that Cruz Martinez’s

family would pay 50,000 pesos for the expenses

incurred by Solano Cruz’s relatives as a result of the

“unfortunate incident,” and that once the parties

accept the agreement and enact its terms the matter

shall be closed.

A few days after the families’ agreed, two

eyewitnesses made sworn statements before public

ocials, pointing to Cruz Martinez as the New

Year’s Eve murderer. On February 23, 2006, an

Oaxacan judge issued an arrest warrant charging

Cruz Martinez with “murder with the aggravating

circumstance of unfair advantage,” and notied the

public prosecutor’s oce the next day.

Following the murders, Cruz Martinez returned

to the United States—Lebanon, Tennessee. He

traveled back to Mexico a couple of times.

When in 2009, an American consular ocial

asked about the status of Cruz Martinez’s arrest

warrant the Oaxacan court responded that it was

“still pending and executable.” In May 2012, the

Mexican government led a diplomatic note with

the United States Department of State, informing

it of the charges against Cruz Martinez and

requesting his “provisional arrest.” Over a year later,

he was arrested by the American authorities. e

Mexican ocials led a formal extradition request

in August 2013.

Complying with the diplomatic, judicial, and

quasi-judicial procedures, the Secretary of State

led Mexico’s extradition request with a federal

magistrate judge in Tennessee. Cruz Martinez

raised multiple challenges to his provisional arrest

and to the extradition proceedings, which were

rejected by the magistrate judge. e magistrate

judge certied to the Secretary of State that Cruz

Martinez could be extradited. Cruz Martinez

then led a habeas corpus action contesting the

magistrate judge’s certication decision. He argued

that his prosecution has become barred by (1) the

relevant American statute of limitations and (2) the

Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to

the United States Constitution. e district court

denied his petition. Cruz Martinez appealed.

e United States Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit arms district court’s decision.

“’Extradition shall not be granted,’ Article 7

of the United States-Mexico Extradition Treaty

says, ‘when the prosecution or the enforcement of

the penalty’ for the charged oense ‘has become

barred by lapse of time according to the laws of the

requesting or requested Party.’ Extradition Treaty,

U.S.-Mex., supra, art. 7, 31 U.S.T. at 5064-65.”

Cruz Martinez argued that the charged oense

is analogous to second-degree murder under

American federal law, meaning that a ve-year

limitations period applied to the charges. However,

the Court agrees with the panel majority’s opinion

that the statute of limitations did not expire even if

the ve-year period applies.

“’[N]o person shall be prosecuted, tried, or

punished for any [non-capital] oense,’ the ve-year

limitations statute provides, ‘unless the indictment

is found or the information is instituted within