US v. Alvarez-Machain – SCOTUS – 1992 (404) Mexican doctor AM indicted in US for participation in murder of CS, undercover DEA officer. Forcibly kidnapped by MX nationals from office and flown to TX, where arrested by DEA.
AM complained abduction violated extradition treaty between US and Mexico
US v. Rauscher – 1886 – doctrine of specialty - prohibited prosecution of R for crime OTHER than the crime for which he had been extradited (according to proper procedures in extradition treaty)
Ker v. Illinois – 1886 – D forcibly abducted from Peru, and then tried and convicted in IL. Proper warrant had been issued, but messenger chose to forcibly kidnap instead.
Distinguished from R – not according to process, decided K had no right under extradition treaty to be RETURNED. Found once you’re in jx, you’re subject to trial – can’t contest legality of abduction.
REHNQUIST Majority – Textual
Must first establish whether abduction violated extradition treaty. If NO, Ker applies, and court doesn’t look to how AM got before it.
In construing treaty – look to terms and implied terms. Here, saying treaty doesn’t specify that extradition is ONLY way one country can get custody of other’s national.
Rejects state’s rights idea – Court of Appeals said state had to lodge former protests.
Decision of whether to return is EXECUTIVE decision. Since it didn’t violate treaty, Ker rule applies re: not inquiring into how jx was attained.
Ignores fact that every other jurisdiction would deem this a violation of int’l law
STEVENS Dissent – Purposive
Treaty only makes sense if interpret it as REQUIRING each signatory to comply with these procedures