Taylor v. McDermott
| Citation | 516 F.Supp.3d 94 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 4:20-cv-11272-IT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
| Parties | Michael L. TAYLOR and Peter M. Taylor, Petitioners, v. Jerome P. MCDERMOTT, Sheriff, Norfolk County, Massachusetts, and John Gibbons, United States Marshal, District of Massachusetts, Respondents. |
Abbe David Lowell, Pro Hac Vice, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Daniel Marino, Pro Hac Vice, Tillman Finley, Pro Hac Vice, Marino Finley LLP, Washington, DC, Paul V. Kelly, Jack son Lewis PC, Robert L. Sheketoff, Boston, MA, for Petitioner Michael L. Taylor.
Abbe David Lowell, Pro Hac Vice, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Washington, DC, James P. Ulwick, Pro Hac Vice, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD, Paul V. Kelly, Jackson Lewis PC, Boston, MA, for Petitioner Peter Maxwell Taylor.
Stephen W. Hassink, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, Philip A. Mirrer-Singer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
TALWANI, D.J.
Before the court are the Petitioners Michael Taylor and Peter Taylor's Verified Second Emergency Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Injunctive Relief ("Second Habeas Petition") [#47]. The Taylors seek writs of habeas corpus halting their transfer to the custody of the Japanese government; finding the decision of the Secretary of State ("Secretary") to surrender them for extradition arbitrary and capricious and in violation of United States law; and reversing the decisions of the Magistrate Judge certifying their extraditability. Id. at 10 (prayer for relief). The Taylors also seek a stay of the transfer of their custody to the Japanese government until they have had "a full and fair opportunity to receive and review the State Department administrative record." Id. at ¶ 13. For the following reasons, the Second Habeas Petition [#47] is DENIED.
In 2018, Carlos Ghosn Bichara ("Ghosn") was indicted by a Japanese court for financial crimes allegedly committed during his tenure as the CEO and/or Chairman of the Board of Directors at Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Ex. F – Extradition Req. for Michael Taylor at Part IV, ¶¶ 1-2 [#41-6].1 Ghosn was later released on bond and conditions, including that he was forbidden from leaving Japan. Id. at Part IV, ¶ 4.
On January 30, 2020, and February 28, 2020, a Japanese court issued and reissued warrants for the Taylors’ arrest for "harboring of criminals and accessoryship of violation of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Article 71, 25 II)" based on allegations that they had provided assistance to Ghosn in escaping from Japan. Ex. I – Original Arrest Warrants [#41-9]; Ex. J – Renewed Arrest Warrants [#41-10].
The government of Japan subsequently requested that the United States issue provisional arrest warrants pursuant to the treaty governing extradition between the United States and Japan. Ex. K – Extradition Req. Transmittal [#41-11]; see also Ex. E – Treaty on Extradition, United States-Japan, effective Mar. 26, 1980, 31 U.S.T. 892 ("Treaty") [#41-5]. The United States thereafter filed complaints pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 in this district, asserting that the Taylors had violated Article 103 of the Japanese Penal Code. Ex. A – Michael Taylor Compl. [#38-2]; Ex. B – Peter Taylor Compl. [#38-3]. The Magistrate Judge to whom the matter was assigned issued the requested warrants, and the Taylors were arrested on May 20, 2020.
The United States moved for detention, and the Taylors were detained pending a request for a detention hearing. See United States’ Mot. for Detention, Michael Taylor MJ Docket (May 20, 2020), ECF No. 9; Elec. Clerk Notes, Michael Taylor MJ Docket (May 20, 2020), ECF No. 11. The Taylors have been held since that date at the Norfolk County Correctional Facility.
The Taylors subsequently moved to quash their arrest warrants or for release from detention. See Mot. to Quash Arrest Warrants or for Release from Detention, Michael Taylor MJ Docket (June 8, 2020), ECF No. 17. While the motions were pending, Japan submitted its formal extradition request. See Notice of Japan's Submission of Req. for Extradition, Michael Taylor MJ Docket (July 2, 2020) ECF No. 37; Ex. K – Extradition Req. Transmittal [#41-11]; see also Ex. F – Extradition Req. for Michael Taylor [#41-6]. The Magistrate Judge denied the motions, finding the Taylors’ challenge to the provisional arrests mooted by Japan's formal extradition request and further finding that bail was not warranted, as the Taylors pose a flight risk and failed to establish special circumstances warranting bail. Elec. Order, Michael Taylor MJ Docket (July 7, 2020) ECF No. 40; Magistrate Judge's Mem. on Resps.’ Mot. to Quash Arrest Warrants or for Release from Detention, Michael Taylor MJ Docket (July 10, 2020) ECF No. 41.
Meanwhile, on July 6, 2020, the Taylors filed with this court their first Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("First Habeas Petition") [#1] and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [#2]. This court denied the requested temporary restraining order on July 9, 2020, Elec. Order [#33], and denied the motion for preliminary injunction and the First Habeas Petition [#1] on August 7, 2020, Mem. & Order 22 [#44]. The court found that the Magistrate Judge's decision denying bail was properly challenged prior to the extradition hearing via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus but that the Taylors had not established special circumstances justifying release on bail or error in the Magistrate Judge's finding that the Taylors posed a flight risk. Id. at 8-18. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court also considered and rejected the Taylors’ contention that they were being improperly held "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Id. at 19-20. Although the court found that the Taylors had not presented grounds demonstrating that they were being unlawfully held, the court did not preclude them from raising these same issues in the extradition proceedings before the Magistrate Judge. Id. at 21. Finally, the court rejected the Taylors’ allegation that the government had been deliberately indifferent to the risk they face from COVID-19 and had therefore violated their constitutional rights. Id. at 22.
The Magistrate Judge held an extradition hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 on August 28, 2020, and issued a written decision finding the Taylors extraditable on September 4, 2020. Extradition Certification and Order of Commitment [#50-1]. The Magistrate Judge found that the terms of the Treaty and 18 U.S.C. § 3184 had been satisfied with respect to the extradition request, and specifically: (1) that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings and the Taylors; (2) that the Treaty was in full force and effect between the United States and Japan; (3) that the charges for which extradition was sought were crimes pursuant to both Japanese and United States law and covered by the Treaty; and (4) that there was probable cause to believe that the Taylors had committed the offenses charged. Id. at 3-10. On September 14, 2020, the Magistrate Judge certified his findings and submitted them to the State Department. Certifications of Michael and Peter Taylor and Committals for Extradition [#50-3].
On October 28, 2020, the Assistant Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence at the State Department wrote to the Taylors that, on October 27, 2020, the Deputy Secretary of State ("Deputy Secretary") had authorized the Taylors’ surrender to Japan. Ltr. From K. Johnson [#50-4]. The letter explained that this decision was reached "[f]ollowing a review of all pertinent information, including the materials submitted directly to the Department of State" and material submitted to this court, and that the Department "carefully and thoroughly considers all claims submitted by a fugitive." Id. The Assistant Legal Advisor also wrote that "[a]s the official responsible for managing the Department's responsibilities in cases of international extradition," she "confirm[ed] that the decision to surrender the Taylors to Japan complie[d] with applicable international obligations as well as domestic statutes and regulations." Id.
The Taylors filed this Second Habeas Petition [#47] the next day. They also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay [#48], which the court granted, pending further order of the court, to allow the court time to review the Second Habeas Petition [#47]. Order [#49]. The court did not address the Taylors’ further request for a stay until they "had a full and fair opportunity to receive and review the State Department administrative record." Elec. Order [#54].
The government subsequently filed its Opposition to Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for Stay and Response to Second Emergency Petition for Habeas Corpus ("U.S. Mem.") [#50], and the court held an expedited hearing on the Second Habeas Petition [#47] on November 5, 2020. The court permitted supplemental filings, and the government filed the Declaration of Deputy Secretary Stephen E. Biegun, see U.S. Supplemental Exhibit [#60-1], while the Taylors filed additional briefing and exhibits, including the submission made on their behalf to the Department of State, see Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Verified Second Emergency Petition [#59]; Petitioners’ Notices of Filing Supplemental Declarations and Exhibits [#61], [#63]; and Petitioners’ Response to U.S. Supplemental Exhibit [#62].
The Taylors subsequently sought to stay these proceedings and remand the matter to the Magistrate Judge, see Motion to Stay Habeas Proceeding and Remand to Extradition Magistrate to Address Motion for Reconsideration of Probable Cause Findings [#68], while also seeking relief from the Magistrate Judge without waiting on a remand. The Magistrate Judge denied relief, as did this court. Elec. Order, United States v. Peter Maxwell Taylor, No. 4:20-mj-01070-DLC (Jan. 15, 2021),...
To continue reading
Request your trial