United States v. Alvarez-Machain case brief, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)

United States v. Alvarez-Machain 
504 U.S. 655 (1992)
 
Procedural History:
Review of dismissal of federal indictment.

Overview:
Alvarez-Machain (D), abducted from Mexico for trial in the United States (P) by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents, contended that his abduction was illegal because of an extradition treaty between the United States (P) and Mexico.Alvarez-Machain (D) was abducted from his office in Mexico by persons working for DEA agents.
-D was wanted in the United States (P) for alleged complicity in the torture-murder of a DEA agent. Alvarez-Machain (D) moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that his abduction violated a U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty.
-The district court agreed and dismissed the indictment. The court of appeals affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

Issue:
Does the presence of an extradition treaty between the United States and another nation necessarily preclude obtaining a citizen of that nation through abduction?

Rule:
the presence of an extradition treaty between the Us and another nation does not necessarily preclude obtaining a citizen of that nation through abduction.

Analysis:
Alvarez-Machain (D) lost this battle but won the war. He was tried in Los Angeles in 1993. At the close of the prosecution's case. the trial judge, Edward Rafeedie, dismissed the case for lack of evidence. (The judge used some harsh language in his order, apparently believing the case should never have been brought.)

Outcome:
-The presence of an extradition treaty between the United States (P) and another nation does not necessarily preclude obtaining a citizen of that nation through abduction. It has long been the rule that abduction, in and of itself, does not invalidate a prosecution against a foreign national. The only question, therefore, is whether the abduction violates any extradition treaty that may be in effect between the United States (P) and the nation in which the abductee was to be found.
-Here, the U.S.-Mexican authorities presumably were aware of the United States' (P) long-standing law regarding abductions and did not insist on including a prohibition against abductions.
-D argued that since international law prohibits abductions, the drafters of the treaty had no reason to consider a prohibition thereof necessary. However, this body of law only applies to situations where no extradition treaty exists, so it is irrelevant here. Consequently, since the extradition treaty does not prohibit an abduction such as occurred here, it was not illegal. Reversed.


DISSENT: (Stevens, ).) The majority opinion fails to distinguish between acts of private citizens, which do not violate any treaty obligations, and conduct expressly authorized by the executive branch, which undoubtedly constitutes a fragrant violation of international law and a breach of the U.S. (P) treaty obligations.