The papers have provided a behind-the-scenes look at an assassination already widely believed to be the work of the Arellanos. Background. 1996) on CaseMine. These statements do not add a great deal to Mexico's case regarding this Respondent. For this reason, Respondent's challenge in this regard is denied. The Court is not required to decide guilt or innocence, but only determines whether there is competent legal evidence to justify holding the accused for trial in the charging country. Buscar. [39] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION RE: DETAINEE'S RESPONSE TO EXTRADITION REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR RELEASE, Page 6, lines 5-7 (Docket No. The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition. Quines eran los narcojuniors reales de Tijuana? The papers have provided a behind-the-scenes look at an assassination already widely believed to be the work of the Arellanos. Id. The United States filed certified documents in support of the extradition request at various times, the first of which was on December 4, 1996. at 77, 78. Prior to the June 30, 1997 evidentiary hearing on the extradition requests, there were numerous other filings by the United States and by counsel for the detainee as well as several status hearings. 1971), cert. [32] Respondent also argues that the statements of Francisco Cabrera Castro and Edgar Alejandro Gonzalez Gonzalez offered by Mexico were also "extracted" by torture. November 4, 1997. The notes are identified by Augustin Hodoyan, Alejandro's brother. Augustin also indicates that Alejandro told him that the Mexican officers intended to torture and kill Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios should he be extradited to Mexico. As indicated previously, the extradition hearing is not a trial, nor a criminal proceeding providing respondent with rights available in a criminal trial at common law. Twenty-eight days after he took office, Ibarra, along with two government agents and a taxi driver, was gunned down in a cab outside Mexico Citys airport. The "recantations" from Cruz and Soto are in the form of testimony before a judge of the First District of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the State of Mexico. At the time of the June 30, 1997 hearing, a typed translation of Alejandro's personal notes was offered. [20] i.e. In this regard, statements characterized as "recantations" were offered by Cruz, Soto and Hodoyan. Miranda details numerous other criminal activities in which Valdez and others in the AFO were involved, including the assassination of Larios Guzman, the July 1994 assassination of multiple military officers, the kidnaping and murder of a person with the last name Margain, and the kidnaping of a man with the last name Baloyan. Hodoyan haba estudiado en una . Those issues will ultimately be resolved by the trial court, along with the sufficiency of the evidence regarding guilt. (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. BATTAGLIA, United States Magistrate Judge. In Bruton, the Supreme Court held that the admission of a co-defendant confession at a joint trial violates the defendants right to confrontation if the confession also incriminates the defendant. 00:15. *291 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michael Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Valdez Mainero. 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 . Respondent has no right to rebut prosecutorial evidence (here, the basis and procedural compliance with the laws of Mexico as well as the determination of probable cause to issue the warrant in Mexico). Terlinden v. Ames,184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. Specifically, Respondent sought "all witness statements submitted in General Gutierrez Rebollo's case to determine whether or not there is additional relevant testimony." Again, no more precise recantation of the specific events exists. The indicia of reliability is clearly on the November 30, 1996 deposition offered in Mexico's case in chief. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. It is asserted that the videotapes demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor and rebut the assertion that Alejandro testified as a result of any torture or duress. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Respondent") [1] is accused by Mexico of having been involved with or committing various crimes in violation of . Publicado: 5/6/2021 7:10:25 PM. The statement by Cruz to the federal prosecutor did indicate that Cruz had suffered recent physical injury. 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. 253 (1910); Rice v. Ames,180 U.S. 371, 21 S. Ct. 406, 45 L. Ed. The record is overwhelming with eyewitness testimony,[20] autopsies and physical evidence from the scene to establish these facts. Argument, inference and innuendo is all that has really been presented here. [12] Statement of Gerardo Cruz Pacheco to an agent of the Federal Prosecutor on October 12, 1996. In re Sindona,450 F. Supp. En septiembre de 2002, el Juzgado Cuarto de Procesos Penales Federales en el Estado de Mxico (antes Juzgado Primero de Distrito . Fue en una fiesta que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un coronel que fue miebro de los guardias presidenciales. Miranda also identifies Respondent as the person depicted in various photographs reference as numbers 53, 54, 55, 73 and 74. 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 . Barrett v. United States, 590 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. Cruising the freeway between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, like any suburban commuter, Emilio Valdez Mainero seemed an unlikely assassin. As earlier stated, the circumstances of Alejandro's testimony are not suggestive of torture, coercion or duress. [1] Valdez was identified or described at various times and by different persons or in documentary evidence with nicknames or aliases. The filing of certified documents permitted Mexico to go forward with the extradition proceeding under the Treaty. Valdez was ordered detained following arraignment. 50). ), affirmed as modified, 478 F.2d 894 (2d Cir.1973) the court stated in part: The magistrate judge conducting the extradition proceeding has wide latitude in admitting evidence. He stated that Valdez and Martinez used a white colored vehicle and that they used another car for protection. The interests of Mexico were represented by the United States through the United States Department of Justice, by United States Attorney Alan D. Bersin and Assistant United States Attorney Gonzalo P. Curiel. This is defined as an individual who is a member of a group or gang of three or more persons whose purpose is to carry out criminal activity (Article 164). EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. However, before we can indict evidence as tainted by the coercive effect of torture, satisfactory evidence must be presented. Specifically, the tape of the interview with Miranda, all notes and interview sheets, and documentation concerning Assistant United States Attorney Curiel's agency on behalf of Mexico. (5) Gilberto Vasquez Culebro. 2d 455 (1972). The statements attributed to Respondent Valdez from the wiretape surveillance,[35] result in a finding that Alejandro's March 3, 1997 declaration and personal notes were contrived and are unreliable. 18 U.S.C. Gill v. Imundi,747 F. Supp. Ultimately, the Court concludes that there is no reliable evidence of torture or duress of the witnesses. The contours do not lend themselves, nor invite the type of inquiry required to evaluate the humanitarian concerns of the magnitude suggested by Respondent. denied, 494 U.S. 1017, 110 S. Ct. 1321, 108 L. Ed. 96-1828 M, in The Matter of the Extradition of Alejandro Hodoyan Palacios, Docket No. De acuerdo con un artculo del periodista Jess Blancornelas, publicado en 2002 . Citations Copy Citation. Bingham v. Bradley,241 U.S. 511, 36 S. Ct. 634, 60 L. Ed. The Secretary of State makes the ultimate decision on whether to surrender the Respondent. [37] These statements were taken in open Court, at the time that Cruz and Soto were arraigned on charges filed against them by the Republic of Mexico and based upon the statements given to the public prosecutor. The request for a provisional arrest is based, in significant part, upon the existence of a warrant for the fugitive's arrest issued in the district of the authority making the request and charging the fugitive with a commission of crime for which his extradition is sought to be obtained. Mr. Valdez was referred to as "El Cabezon", "C.P. In re Petition of France for Extradition of Sauvage,819 F. Supp. 44). Miranda added that the motivation for assassination was that Gallardo had threatened Gabriel Valdez Mainero (Emilio Valdez Mainero's brother) with a firearm.[26]. Valdez also faces charges of arranging the sale of a kilogram of heroin to a fellow inmate through friends outside prison. Court documents say the threat against assistant U.S. Atty. [27] Soto actually made a series of statements relative to this matter. 3190. While obviously nervous as he recounts the AFO's activities, there are no signs of physical abuse or manifestations consistent with psychological pressure or duress. Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 789, 790 (9th Cir.1986). The document was written by Alejandro Hodoyan Ramirez, father of both Alejandro and Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios who is also an extraditee sought by Mexico. In contesting the accuracy of the statement of the federal prosecutor, he "rejects" the alias described to him, the reported rank in the infantry, and claims that he does not belong to the Presidential General staff but to the Presidential Guards Corps. United States v. Taitz, 130 F.R.D. There is no credible evidence supporting the authenticity of this summary of testimony in the closed investigation in Mexico. 30), he requests discovery regarding the statement by Miranda. Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. Respondent asserts that the Treaty in this instance is invalid due to changed circumstances. During the drive, Contreras told Cruz that, "his friends in the white Volkswagen wanted to say hello to a fellow citizen who was in Toluca to train for boxing." Specifically, Respondent submits that the Treaty is invalid because the use of torture in Mexico in obtaining evidence, including the evidence in this matter, is contrary to the law of the United States. October 21, 1996. 124 F.3d 1186, 1997 WL 624797 (9th Cir.). B. Gustavo Miranda Santacruz On November 19, 1996, Gustavo Miranda Santacruz (hereinafter "Miranda") made a declaration before Assistant United States Attorney, Gonzalo P. Curiel, acting as Mexico's agent pursuant to a request under the mutual Legal Assistance Treaty that exists between Mexico and the United States. [42] See RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF EXTRADITION (Docket No. Alejandro's statements are based upon his personal knowledge due to his admitted involvement in the AFO and their activities. An analysis of whether this Court should enact a humanitarian exception into foreign extradition begins with a recognition of the rule of non-inquiry. Background. Certainly, the decision to act upon this type of evidence rests upon some indicia of authenticity and reliability. 2d 476 (1968), is also unpersuasive in this regard. In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. They are: (1) Ministerial Statement of September 27, 1996, at 1140 a.m. to Maria Isabel Gonzalez Chavez, an agent of the federal prosecutor, in Guadalajara, Mexico; (2) Additional Ministerial Statement of September 27, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. to Maria Isabel Gonzalez Chavez, an agent of the federal prosecutor, in Guadalajara, Mexico; (3) Additional Statement of September 30, 1996, at 9:00 p.m. to Maria Isabel Gonzalez Chavez, an agent of the federal prosecutor in Mexico City, Mexico; and. Quines son los narcojuniors en los que est basada la historia . If the Court determines that all the requisite elements have been met, the findings are incorporated into a certificate of extraditability. 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. denied, 398 U.S. 903, 90 S. Ct. 1688, 26 L. Ed. On July 29, 1997, Respondent filed a Motion to Reopen Evidence in this matter. [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. Under 18 U.S.C. Mexican law defines murder (or homicide) as taking the life of another (Article 302). On October 22, 1997, the Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to produce photographic evidence referenced in witness statements and related to the issue of the identity of Respondent. [6] The Court also directed the United States to request from Mexico, a signed statement of Seargent Ruiz and evidence of all dates of arrest after September 1, 1996 of witnesses Soto, Alejandro Hodoyan, Francisco Cabrera Castro and Gerardo Cruz Pacheco.[7]. the arrest dates of Soto and Cruz), is unpersuasive as offered to totally obliterate probable cause under a Contreras analysis. Explanatory evidence is allowed only if the evidence would, clearly, negate a showing of probable cause. Mr. Vasquez testified based upon his acquaintance and interaction with Respondent and his involvement in the events he describes. In the Matter of Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. United States ex rel Sakaguchi v. Kaulukukui, 520 F.2d 726, 730-731 (9th Cir.1975). [21] The real issue in this proceeding is whether or not there is probable cause to establish that Respondent was one of the perpetrators. When he appeared in court, the judge also noted, on the record, residual signs of physical injury. emilio valdez mainerospiral pattern printing in c. phillies front office salaries In fact, the prevailing authorities are clear that: The decision to honor a request for extradition is "political", not "judicial". 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. Valdez moved the Court for release under the special circumstances doctrine. In fact, Respondent urges the Court to dismiss this proceeding stating that the Mexican Attorney General's office held back these statements because of their negative impact on the probable cause analysis. Aparte de Kitty 'Pez', los que formaron el grupo de los "Narcojuniors" fueron Emilio Valdz Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial; Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un importante empresario . 830 (1911). 12). [15] The Treaty, in Article 11, and 18 U.S.C. In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. These offenses are extraditable offenses under the extradition treaty between Mexico and the United States.
emilio valdez mainero