Castro Bobadilla v. Reno

• Decision Date: 09 July 1993
• Docket Number: No. 93-0927-CIV.,93-0927-CIV.
• Parties: Rosa Herlinda CASTRO BOBADILLA, Petitioner, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

826 F. Supp. 1428

Rosa Herlinda CASTRO BOBADILLA, Petitioner, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 93-0927-CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

July 9, 1993.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Samuel Smargon, Brenda G. Bryn, Asst. Federal Public Defenders, Miami, FL, for petitioner.

Luis Perez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, FL, for respondent.

ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

GRAHAM, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Petitioner, Rosa Herlinda Castro Bobadilla's ("Rosa Castro"), Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed May 14, 1993.

I. Procedural Background

On November 30, 1992, a complaint and warrant for the arrest of Rosa Castro were filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and the Extradition Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Honduras. On March 11 and 12, 1993, United States Magistrate Linnea R. Johnson conducted an extradition hearing. Magistrate Judge Johnson issued an Order of Extradition on March 16, 1993, ordering that Rosa Castro be committed to the custody of the United States Marshal until she is surrendered to the Government of Honduras and that the Court's findings, together with a copy of all the evidence received be certified to the Secretary of State. On June 9, 1993, Judge Johnson issued an Amended Order of Extradition delineating her factual findings.

Rosa Castro seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the grounds that Judge Johnson's legal interpretation of Article XII of the treaty between the United States and Honduras is incorrect and that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause.

II. Factual Background

Rosa Castro is charged with murder, in violation of Article 117, Title 1, Book II, Special Section, Chapter on Crimes Against the Life and Physical Integrity, of the Honduran Penal Code. Rosa Castro is a forty-two year old Honduran citizen who was married to Jose Antonio Debbe Ramos, the then personnel director of the Direccion Nacional de Investigation (DNI), the Honduran secret police.¹ Rosa Castro has three children, one of which is fathered by Antonio Debbe Ramos.

In February 1992, Rosa Castro and Fernando Marichal Callejas ("Callejas")² were lovers³. On February 14, 1992 at approximately 5:00 a.m. Callejas was reported missing by his wife. Callejas' vehicle, a Nissan Pathfinder, was last seen on February 13, 1992 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. in front of the home of Rosa Castro. On Saturday, February 17, 1992 Callejas was found dead in the luggage compartment of his Nissan Pathfinder. Callejas had been strangled and hogtied. There was a boot print on Callejas back which was later determined to be from the type of boots commonly worn by the military.

Rosa Castro was arrested in Honduras in connection with the murder of Callejas. While in custody in Honduras, Rosa Castro exhibited transvaginal bleeding and was transferred to a hospital for medical attention.⁴ Rosa Castro left the hospital and eventually made her way to the United States.⁵

In support of its extradition request, the United States, acting on behalf of the government of Honduras, submitted the declaration of Keith Loken of the United States Department of State that the Treaty between the United States and Honduras is in full force and effect. Attached to said declaration are the diplomatic note formally requesting the extradition of Rosa Castro and a copy of the Treaty between the United States and Honduras. The government also submitted a compilation of Honduran documents with translations which includes: (1) a sworn statement by Judge Jesus Manuel Martinez Suazo, Judge of the First Criminal Court of Letters, describing the investigation and his findings in connection with the role of Rosa Castro in the murder of Callejas; (2) two autopsy reports regarding the death of Callejas; (3) the transcripts of the statements of Rosa Castro given on February 21, 1992 and March 11, 1992; (4) the transcripts of the statements of Bessy Luz Amador Martinez, Leonila Mejia, Gustavo Andres Dominguez Hernandez and Jimmy Lordwind Lozano Mejia; (5) Arrest Orders issued against Rosa Castro; (6) copies of checks written by Callejas to bearer which Rosa Castro cashed; and (7) photographs of the body of Callejas, the Pathfinder, fibers found in the rope used to tie Callejas and objects found in the house of Rosa Castro's neighbor, Leonila Mejia.

At the extradition hearing, Rosa Castro presented the testimony of the following persons: (1) Ana Carazo-Johanning on the admissibility of testimony and evidence under Honduran law; (2) Edward Whittaker concerning the reliability of the fiber and serological examinations performed by the Honduran authorities; (3) Arema de Castro regarding the statement she and four other women obtained from Leonila Mejia wherein Ms. Mejia declares that her prior statements were fabrications; (4) Raul Vila concerning the findings of the Honduran pathologists; (5) Dennis Castro (the brother of Rosa Castro) regarding the violation of human rights and lack of due process in Honduras; and (6) Rosa Castro herself regarding the circumstances surrounding the murder of Callejas and her arrest and departure from Honduras. Rosa Castro also filed copies of Honduran newspaper articles concerning the murder of Callejas.

III. Standard of Review

As there are no appeal rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3184, a habeas corpus petition may be used to contest a Magistrate's decision on foreign extradition. Ylipelkonen v. Stein, 768 F.Supp. 347, 349 (S.D.Fla.1991). Habeas review is limited to inquiries as to (i) whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction over the extradition proceedings; (ii) whether the offense charged is within the treaty; and (iii) whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty. Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S.Ct. 541, 542, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925); Hill v. United States, 737 F.2d 950, 951 n. 1 (11th Cir.1984); Cheng Na-Yuet v. Hueston, 734 F.Supp. 988, 990 (S.D.Fla.1990). Findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 791 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882, 107 S.Ct. 271, 93 L.Ed.2d 247 (1986); Cheng Na-Yuet v. Hueston, 734 F.Supp. at 990. Questions of law require de novo review. Kamrin v. United States, 725 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 817, 105 S.Ct. 85, 83 L.Ed.2d 32 (1984).

IV. Interpretation of Article XII of The Treaty

Rosa Castro challenges Judge Johnson's interpretation of the phrase "legal evidence of guilt" as used in Article XII of the Treaty.⁶ Rosa Castro suggests that the Court construe this phrase as meaning either (a) a standard of proof higher than probable cause such as perhaps a standard of proof approximating proof beyond a reasonable doubt or (b) that the Court should consider only evidence which would be "legally admissible" in a trial in the requesting country. In response, the government argues that the standard of proof required is enunciated in Article I of the Treaty⁷ as opposed to Article XII. There is no dispute that the standard to which Article I refers is that of probable cause. In construing a treaty, as in construing a statute, we first look to its terms to determine its meaning. United States v. Alvarez-Machain, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2188, 2193, 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (1992) (citing Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 397, 105 S.Ct. 1338, 1341, 84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985); Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 11, 57 S.Ct. 100, 103, 81 L.Ed. 5 (1936)). The literal interpretation of Article XII is that a fugitive may be held for up to two months during which time, the requesting government must present the magistrate or judge with sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause. Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicable standard to be applied in the case at bar is that of probable cause.

V. Probable Cause

The extradition hearing is not a trial on the merits to determine guilt or innocence, but serves as a means of ensuring that probable cause exists to believe the person whose surrender if sought has committed the crime for which his extradition if requested. United States v. Wiebe, 733 F.2d 549, 553 (8th Cir.1984) (citations omitted); see also Koskotas v. Roche, 931 F.2d 169, 175 (1st Cir.1991) (citations omitted). When reviewing a magistrate's finding of probable cause in an extradition proceeding, the court examines the record to see whether there was competent evidence to support the conclusion that there was probable cause to believe the petitioner guilty. Zanazanian v. United States, 729 F.2d 624, 625 (9th Cir. 1984); Merino v. United States Marshal, 326 F.2d 5, 11 (9th Cir.1963) (citing Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S.Ct. 541, 542, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925)). The scope of the district court's review of the magistrate's determination of probable cause is limited to "whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty." Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 790 (citing Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S.Ct. 541, 542, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925)).

In extradition proceedings, probable cause is measured by the federal standard used in preliminary proceedings. Sindona v. Grant, 619 F.2d 167, 175 (2d Cir. 1980): United States v. Barr, 619 F.Supp. 1068, 1071 (E.D.Pa.1985). The federal probable cause standard requires "evidence sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the accused's guilt." Republic of France v. Moghadam, 617 F.Supp. 777, 782 (D.C.Cal.1985). An extradition hearing is not conducted under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed.R.Crim.P. 54(b)(5), and generally is not considered a criminal proceeding. Sabatier v. Dabrowski, 586 F.2d 866, 869 (1st Cir.1978). Hearsay and other excludable evidence may be admissible at...