In re Extradition of Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 06 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-06.,99-06. |
| Citation | 52 F.Supp.2d 725 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Ricardo GONZALEZ, Victor Huerta. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Wayne J Blanchard, Federal Public Defenders Office, Lafayette, LA, for defendants.
Wayne J Blanchard, (See above), for Ricardo Gonzalez, defendant.
MEMORANDUM RULING ON APPLICATIONS FOR BOND IN EXTRADITION MATTER
Ricardo Gonzalez and Victor Huerta ("movers") were taken into federal custody on March 5, 1999 pursuant to a warrant and complaint for provisional arrest pending extradition to Mexico. Before the court are movers' applications for release on bond pending the extradition hearing. The United States government, on behalf of the government of Mexico ("the government"), opposes the applications for bond.
The undersigned magistrate judge held evidentiary hearings on March 17 and March 23, 1999. Considering the evidence presented and the applicable law, the undersigned concluded that movers established by clear and convincing evidence that special circumstances exist which entitle them to bond pending the extradition hearing, and that they are not flight risks. Specifically, movers demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at the extradition hearing because it appears the government will be unable to establish probable cause that movers are the bank robbers wanted in the extradition proceeding.
Accordingly, movers were released on March 23, 1999 on $100,000 unsecured bonds and stringent conditions of release. After consultation with the district judge, the government's motion for stay of the bonds pending appeal of this ruling was denied, except that the additional condition of electronic monitoring was added as a condition of release pending the resolution of any appeal of this order.
Set forth below are the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting movers' release pending the extradition hearing.
On the morning of June 30, 1998, three armed men robbed a bank in Puebla, Mexico, a city located approximately 80 miles southeast of Mexico City. According to documents received from Mexico, the perpetrators tied up and beat three security guards, threatening to kill them if they did not comply with their orders.1 An unspecified number of bank employees were also tied up and threatened. The perpetrators seized approximately $13,500 in cash and $24,000 in travelers checks from the bank safe.2 The two vehicles allegedly used in the robbery were found abandoned. It was later determined the vehicles had been stolen in Mexico.
Six months later, on December 30, 1998, Huerta and Gonzalez were arrested by city police in Lafayette, Louisiana while attempting to cash one of the stolen travelers checks at a Bank One branch. Movers were held for over two months in state custody, unable to make bond, until transferred to federal custody on March 5, 1998 pursuant to the United States' complaint for provisional arrest pending extradition.3
On March 12 and March 22 respectively, Huerta and Gonzalez filed the instant applications for bond. Movers contend that special circumstances warrant their release on bond: specifically, that they are innocent and can prove that on the day of the robbery they were at their jobs hundreds of miles away from Puebla. Furthermore, both contend that they are not flight risks and can be released on bond pending the extradition hearing.
The government contends that the court erred in admitting alibi evidence at the bail hearing because such evidence is inadmissible at an extradition hearing. The government also contends that movers have failed to show special circumstances for their release, particularly if the court excludes the alibi evidence.
The government, with rare exception, chose not to cross-examine movers' witnesses at the evidentiary hearings, nor did the government call any witnesses.4 The government also raised no challenge to the factual information presented to the court by Pretrial Services regarding the backgrounds of Huerta and Gonzalez. Therefore, the facts presented to the court are largely uncontested.
Victor Huerta was born in Mexico and is twenty-six years old.5 He legally entered the United States at age seventeen on December 17, 1989, and has lived and worked here since then. Huerta's immigration attorney, Marvio G. Thompson of Metairie, Louisiana, has been assisting him since June 1996 in obtaining permanent resident status.6 Through his attorney's efforts, Huerta has applied for certification for alien employment through the U.S. Department of Labor, and Huerta's employer has filed the necessary petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The parties stipulated at the March 17 hearing that Huerta is legally in the United States.7
Huerta resides in Abbeville, Louisiana. He has one sister also living in Abbeville, Cristina Serrano. Huerta's parents, a brother, and three other sisters reside in Mexico. One of the sisters in Mexico is married to mover Ricardo Gonzalez. Huerta obtained a high school diploma in Mexico, and is currently working on his GED in Erath, Louisiana. In 1998, Huerta worked for Larry Romero at his rooster farm in Abbeville, earning between $1200 and $1500 per month. He also worked for a month and a half as an offshore laborer and for three months as a truck driver for Randol's Restaurant in Lafayette. Huerta married Jacqueline Juarez in August 1997, but they separated in September 1997. He has no criminal history other than the arrest in connection with the instant matter.8
Documentary evidence shows that during the relevant period, Huerta worked, maintained bank accounts, had an established credit record, paid bills, and essentially lived a normal life.9 In June 1998 Huerta had two local checking accounts: a joint account with Juarez at Gulf Coast Bank in Abbeville, and an individual checking account at First National Bank in Lafayette.10 Bank statements during this period show modest (sometimes negative) balances.
Huerta testified that he has not traveled to Mexico, or any other country, since his entry into the United States in December 1989. This testimony is corroborated by Huerta's immigration attorney, who stated in a letter:
It is the customary practice of this firm to advise all clients in the process of obtaining permanent residence not to travel outside of the United States without consulting this office first. In many cases, departing the United States may be considered an abandonment of the process. Although our office does not have a record of advising Mr. Huerta of the risks of departing the United States, we believe that he was advised not to leave while his application was pending. Further, Mr. Huerta never contacted this office about departing the United States, or to advise that he had in fact departed and returned.
(Exhibit D8 admitted at the March 17 hearing).
Huerta's sister, Cristina Serrano, testified regarding Huerta's whereabouts on June 30, 1998. Serrano has been legally in the United States for eleven years. According to Serrano, on the date in question, Huerta worked at Larry Romero's rooster farm during the day. She is 75% sure that in the evening, Huerta babysat her children while she and her husband went to a casino. Serrano explained that during that period, she and many other Mexicans were closely following Mexico's progress in the World Cup soccer tournaments. The games were being broadcast live via satellite in the mornings, and the replays were aired at night. She believes that on the night of June 30, her brother wanted to watch the replays at her home, and that he babysat at the same time.
Huerta also testified that he believed he was watching a soccer game replay on the night of June 30 — specifically Mexico's game against Holland which resulted in a 2-2 tie. Following the March 17 hearing, however, the undersigned checked the World Cup schedule for June 1998 via the Internet. The information obtained showed that the Holland-Mexico game was played on June 25, 1998. There is no record of a match being played on June 30, 1998. To allow Huerta to address this discrepancy, among other things, another hearing was held on March 23.11 No additional evidence was presented on this point. However, persuasive evidence of Huerta's whereabouts was presented at the March 23 hearing by Huerta's employer, Larry Romero.
Romero lives in Abbeville, Louisiana. After his retirement from Trans La Gas in December 1997, he began raising game roosters for worldwide shipment. In addition, he trains roosters for cockfighting derbies. Romero hired Huerta to help him train the roosters and to perform other jobs around the farm. Huerta has permission from INS to work for Romero. In June 1998, Huerta was both living and working at Romero's farm, and was Romero's only full-time employee. Romero has known Huerta for ten years, since shortly after he came to the United States.
Romero testified that he specifically recalls Huerta being at work on June 30 because Romero had committed to send roosters to a derby to be held in Texoma, Oklahoma on July 2, 3 and 4, 1998. Romero and Huerta spent each day leading up to the derby training the roosters together. Romero corroborated this testimony by showing the court page 80 of "Game Cock" magazine which contained a reference to the derby being held on the dates in question. Romero testified that he would have remembered if Huerta was absent two days before the Oklahoma derby, and that he was not absent. Romero characterized Huerta as one of the most dependable workers he has ever known. He is certain that Huerta was working with him on the farm on June 30, 1998. The undersigned found Romero to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of The Extradition of Jose Luis Munoz Santos
...cause, including two cases on which Munoz relies in arguing for the admission of his proffered evidence. See In re Gonzalez, 52 F.Supp.2d 725, 738–740 (W.D.La.1999) (admitting “credible” alibi evidence that “undermines, or ‘negates' the existence of probable cause”); In re Contreras, 800 F.......
-
U.S. v. Ramnath
...flight risk nor a danger is, without more, an insufficient ground for admission to bail pending an extradition hearing. In re Extradition of Gonzalez, 52 F.Supp.2d at 735. An additional requirement is to establish — also by clear and convincing evidence — a special circumstance or a combina......
-
In the Matter of The Extradition of Heriberto Garcia.
...fill in the gaps left by current legislation for bail determinations in foreign extradition cases. See, e.g., In re Extradition of Gonzalez, 52 F.Supp.2d 725, 735 (W.D.La.1999). The federal extradition statute provides no explicit authority for a district court to grant bail to a potential ......
-
In re Extradition of Garcia
...or obliterates probable cause, but not if it merely controverts the evidence of the requesting country.” In re Extradition of Gonzalez, 52 F.Supp.2d 725, 739 (W.D.La.1999); Cervantes Valles, 268 F.Supp.2d at 772. The Court in Matter of Sindona discussed the difference between “explanatory” ......
-
Coordinating the attack in trial
...ATTACK IN TRIAL §20:40 Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests 20-12 (MapQuest™); In re Extradition of Gonzalez (W. D. La. 1999) 52 F. Supp. 2d 725, 731 n. 12 (MapQuest™). [§§20:36-20:39 Reserved] D. Witness and Discovery Problems §20:40 Exchanging Witness Lists Most state statutes requ......