In re Extradition of David, Civ. No. 73-300-E.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 73-300-E. |
| Citation | 395 F. Supp. 803 |
| Parties | In re the Extradition of Christian Jacques DAVID. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Henry A. Schwarz, U. S. Atty., William C. Evers, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., East St. Louis, Ill., for the Government of France.
Paul M. Caldwell, Benton, Ill., Michael J. Rovell of Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., Ivan S. Fisher, New York City, for David.
This is an international extradition proceeding instituted by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Illinois acting on behalf of the Republic of France. The amended complaint for extradition alleges that Christian Jacques David, a citizen of France, is legally charged in France with the murder of a police commissioner and with the attempted murder of a police officer. It is further alleged that David has sought asylum in the United States and may be found within this judicial district. The complaint prays that this Court find that David is extraditable under the 1911 Extradition Treaty with France, and certify said finding to the Secretary of State pursuant to the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 3184.
Respondent, David, through his attorneys, raised numerous objections and defenses at the final hearing in this case. Several of these matters were taken under advisement and therefore must be ruled on at this time.
David objects to the admissibility of Exhibit Number One of the Republic of France. The Exhibit consists of a number of different documents written in French with English translations. These documents represent the larger part of the proof presented against David. They include depositions, the warrant for arrest, a request for extradition, and photographs and fingerprints of the man wanted by France. It is obvious that if Exhibit Number One is not admissible, then there is no adequate basis for permitting his extradition to France.
David's primary objection to Exhibit Number One is that it is not properly authenticated. The proper method for authenticating the documents contained in Exhibit Number One is to have them certified by the principal consular officer of the United States residing in France, 18 U.S.C. § 3190. All of the documents in the exhibit are so certified. David contends, however, that this certification is invalid because there is a blank on the certificate which is not filled in. It is clear that "France" goes in the blank space. The Court feels that this omission is in the nature of a clerical error and does not affect the validity of the certification. Certificates which are in substantial conformity with the requirements of the statute provide adequate assurance of the authenticity of the documents certified, In re Neely, 103 F. 626 (C.C.N. Y.1900); In re Lo Dolce, 106 F.Supp. 455 (D.C.N.Y.1952).
David also claims that the documents in Exhibit Number One are inaccurately translated. The only basis for this claim is that one page of the translation contains fewer paragraphs than the original French document. The Court feels that the translations must be presumed to be correct unless David presents some convincing evidence otherwise. The fact that one page of the translation contains fewer paragraphs than the original is not in itself sufficient to impeach the authenticity of the translation.
David also objects to the admissibility of Exhibit Number One because it contains hearsay and legal conclusions. This objection is without merit. Ordinary rules of evidence do not apply to extradition proceedings. Documents which are otherwise properly certified are admissible at an extradition hearing even though they would not be admissible at a criminal trial, In re Lo Dolce, supra; Caputo v. Kelly, 19 F.Supp. 730 (D.C.N.Y.1937).
David's objections to Exhibit Number One have all been denied. Since the documents contained therein are relevant to this proceeding, France's Exhibit Number One will be admitted into evidence.
David also seeks to have the testimony of France's only two witnesses stricken. These witnesses testified that fingerprint comparisons showed that David was the same person as the individual sought by France. David objects to their testimony because France's answers to his interrogatories stated that no witnesses would be called and that fingerprints would not be used as a means of identification. David claims that he was prejudiced by the "surprise" witnesses because his attorneys were not prepared to cross-examine them or to present independent fingerprint experts in his behalf.
At the hearing David's attorneys were given an opportunity to interview France's identification witnesses before cross-examining them. They were also told to inform the Court whether they felt further proceedings would be necessary because of the "surprise" witnesses. David's attorneys have subsequently informed the Court that they do not wish to call any witnesses on the identification issue and that they would not further cross-examine France's identification witnesses if another hearing were held. Since David has been given an opportunity to alleviate any prejudice due to the two "surprise" witnesses, the Court does not see any reason to strike their testimony.
David next contends that the arrest warrant is not based on the depositions contained in Exhibit Number One. Article Three of the Treaty with France states as follows:
"If the person whose extradition is requested . . . is merely charged with a crime or offense, a duly authenticated copy of the warrant of arrest in the country where the crime or offense has been committed and of the depositions or other evidence upon which such warrant was issued, shall be produced."
The arrest warrant to which David refers, is the original arrest warrant issued in France shortly after the crime occurred. This warrant could not be based on the depositions contained in Exhibit Number One since it was issued before they were taken. However, the Court interprets Article III of the Treaty to refer to the International Warrant for Arrest, rather than the original French arrest warrant. The Court finds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gon v. Holder
...The Government is not required to provide certified translations of the charging documents. See, e.g., In re Extradition of David, 395 F.Supp. 803, 806 (E.D.Ill.1975) (“[T]ranslations must be presumed to be correct unless [the fugitive] presents some convincing evidence otherwise.”); Ntakir......
-
Gon v. Holder
...The Government is not required to provide certified translations of the charging documents. See, e.g., In re Extradition of David, 395 F.Supp. 803, 806 (E.D.Ill.1975) (“[T]ranslations must be presumed to be correct unless [the fugitive] presents some convincing evidence otherwise.”); Ntakir......
-
In the Matter of The Extradition of Zhenly Ye Gon
...“[T]ranslations must be presumed to be correct unless [the respondent] presents some convincing evidence otherwise.” In re David, 395 F.Supp. 803, 806 (E.D.Ill.1975); accord Ntakirutimana v. Reno, 184 F.3d 419, 430 (5th Cir.1999) (“The extradition court need not independently inquire into t......
-
IN RE EXTRADITION OF AQUINO, Mag. No. 09-mj-7035 (ES).
...conformity to the requirements of the statute, thus providing reasonable assurance of authenticity); see, also, In re David, 395 F.Supp. 803, 805 (E.D.Ill.1975) (holding mere oversights such as a clerical error shall not affect the validity of the certification, if the certification substan......