In re Etouman
| Decision Date | 08 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-MJ-354 |
| Citation | 533 F.Supp.3d 312 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the EXTRADITION OF Jean Guy Guillaume ETOUMAN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Whitney E.C. Minter, Office of the Federal Public Defender (Alexandria), Alexandria, VA, for Jean Guy Guillaume Etouman.
CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITION AND COMMITTAL OF JEAN GUY GUILLAUME ETOUMAN
This matter presents the question of whether the court should certify to the Secretary of State that it is appropriate to extradite Jean Guy Guillaume Etouman ("Etouman") to France pursuant to an extradition request from that country. After considering the submissions and arguments of the parties, the court determines that it has jurisdiction over both this matter and Etouman, that there is an extradition treaty in full force and effect between the United States and France, that Etouman's extradition would be appropriate under the treaty, and that probable cause exists to believe Etouman has committed the offenses charged by French officials. For the reasons explained below, the court certifies to the Secretary of State that it is appropriate to extradite Etouman to France and that Etouman shall be held in custody pending a decision from the Secretary of State concerning whether to extradite Etouman.
Between May 2020 and January 2021, the Government of France transmitted a series of extradition requests to the United States Department of State seeking the extradition of Etouman. (Docket no. 16-1 at 5–11). On December 16, 2020, the United States filed a complaint for arrest with a view towards extradition against Etouman in this District, as well as the French warrant and conviction in absentia. (Docket nos. 1–2). On the same day, the court issued an arrest warrant for Etouman. (Docket no. 3). The arrest warrant was executed on December 16, 2020. (Docket no. 4). On December 17, 2020, Etouman made his initial appearance in this court, counsel was appointed to represent him in this matter, and a detention hearing was scheduled. (Docket no. 5). On December 18, 2021, the court held a detention hearing where Etouman was represented by counsel and, after hearing arguments from counsel, the court ordered that Etouman remain in custody pending further proceedings. (Docket nos. 9–11). On February 10, 2021, the court set a briefing schedule and scheduled an extradition hearing for Etouman for March 30, 2021. (Docket nos. 14–15). Prior to the scheduled extradition hearing, the United States submitted a memorandum in support of extradition, Etouman submitted an opposition to the extradition request, and the United States submitted a reply. (Docket nos. 16–18). On March 30, 2021, the extradition hearing was continued to April 5, 2021. (Docket no. 19). Etouman appeared at the extradition hearing on April 5, 2021 and counsel for the United States and Etouman presented arguments to the court regarding the extradition request. (Docket no. 20).
The extradition request arises out of a warrant issued for the arrest of Etouman and his conviction in absentia on charges of rape of a vulnerable person and theft at the expense of a vulnerable person. (Docket no. 16-2 at 10). As described in the Details of the Charges included in the request for extradition (Docket no. 16-2 at 27–38), Etouman met with his brother, Paul Etouman, and a friend, Benjamin Chelly, at the Le Saint nightclub in Paris, France on the night of September 29, 2001. Id. at 33–34. The alleged victim, a Finnish national, age 27, was living in Paris at the time and met two young men, who seemed to know each other well, at Le Saint that night. Id. at 33. One of the two men was Benjamin Chelly. Id. at 33–34. The other man, the victim stated, accompanied her home after leaving Le Saint at around 5:30 a.m. on September 30, 2001. Id. at 33. The victim stated they started drinking again once at her home and she fell asleep, but when she woke up around 10:30 a.m. he was gone and her residence card, Finnish passport, bank card, two cell phones, and around four hundred francs in cash were all missing. Id. The victim stated the key to her apartment was also gone and her apartment had been locked from the outside. Id. A note had been left directing the victim to take the morning-after pill. Id.
The victim filed a complaint and provided testimony at the police station, stating she had suffered memory loss during the night of the events, had consumed five to six beers and some vodka at her home but that alcohol usually did not have such an effect on her (an assertion corroborated to French police by a friend of the victim). Id. The victim also told police that she was not wearing pants or undergarments when she woke up, despite falling asleep in them and having no memory of sexual intercourse. Id. French investigators collected the bottle of vodka the victim identified as the alcohol consumed at her home, and a toxicological analysis found Gamma-Hydroxybutyric ("GHB") in the bottle. Id. The victim later stated that she had long had the bottle of vodka, had been drinking from it with her friends on the night in question before going to Le Saint, and none of them reported feeling unwell afterwards. Id. at 36. The investigators also collected the victim's bedspread, pants, and undergarments, and took vaginal and anal swabs from the victim. Id. at 33. Spermatozoa was found in the swabs taken from the victim, as well as on the victim's bedspread, pants, and undergarments. Id. Experts in France identified the DNA in the swabs and the DNA in the other items as Etouman's based on a sample later taken from him. Id.
After initially denying going to Le Saint on the evening in question, Etouman admitted to meeting the victim there, alleged they had consensual sex after drinking three additional glasses of alcohol at her home, admitted to stealing from the victim, admitted to writing the note directing the victim to take contraception, and admitted to locking the victim in her apartment. Id. at 34. Etouman's brother told investigators that Etouman told him that the victim had fallen asleep before the sexual intercourse and that Etouman decided to steal from the victim because he did not like her "attitude" among other things. Id. at 35. Etouman was charged on March 29, 2002 along with another individual, but on June 23, 2003, Etouman retracted accusations against the other accused and the charges against that individual were dismissed. Id. at 36–37.
The victim later stated that shortly after having her last drink at Le Saint, offered to her by Etouman, she was in a state of stupor and lost all memory of subsequent events. Id. at 37. The victim denied having been romantically or sexually interested in Etouman, describing him as young, and stated she did not usually bring strangers home. Id. Etouman stated he only went to the victim's home to rob her but decided to have sexual intercourse with her once in the apartment, and alleged that the victim had offered to have sex with him while they were still at Le Saint. Id. An expert conducted a medical examination of the victim and concluded that she had no personality disorders, no structural disturbance in her memory
, and no mythomania or pathological tendency to lie or exaggerate. Id. Instead, the expert found that the victim was intelligent, with good adaptability and good acceptance of reality; her credibility was "not questionable"; and assessed the victim to have post-traumatic stress from the incident. Id.
Extradition proceedings are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and the terms of the relevant treaty between the country where the fugitive is found and the country seeking extradition. After the fugitive is arrested, that individual must appear before a judicial official for an extradition hearing so "that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered." 18 U.S.C. § 3184.
As the Fourth Circuit has explained, "[t]he extradition hearing is not a full trial; rather its purpose is to determine (1) whether there is probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of the laws of the foreign country requesting extradition, [and] (2) whether such conduct would have been criminal if committed in the United States."1 Zhenli Ye Gon v. Holt , 774 F.3d 207, 210 (4th Cir. 2014). The court must also determine whether there is an extradition treaty in full force and effect between the United States and the country requesting extradition, and whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the extradition proceeding and personal jurisdiction over the fugitive. See, e.g., In re Extradition of Exoo , 522 F. Supp. 2d 766, 775 (S.D. W. Va. 2007) (citing Extradition of Garcia , 890 F. Supp. 914, 917 (S.D. Cal. 1994) ).
The statute governing the extradition of individuals to foreign countries allows magistrate judges to conduct extradition proceedings if they are authorized to do so "by a court of the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 3184. This court's local rules provide that "magistrate judges ... are authorized ... to perform all duties authorized or allowed to be performed by United States magistrate judges by the United States Code." E.D. Va. Local Criminal Rule 5; E.D. Va. Local Civil Rule 72. Thus, the undersigned is authorized to conduct this extradition hearing. The undersigned's jurisdiction over this extradition proceeding is also not in dispute. See Docket no. 17 at 2.
A court has jurisdiction to conduct extradition proceedings over any person found within its jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Etouman was arrested at Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia (Docket no. 4), which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Virginia. Thus, this court has personal jurisdiction over Etouman for this proceeding.
The United States has submitted a...
To continue reading
Request your trial