United States v. Noriega case brief

United States v. Noriega

1. 1. A Florida grand jury returned a multi-count indictment against then-Panamanian dictator Noriega for his involvement in a conspiracy to import cocaine into the US. District court considered whether the US may exercise jurisdiction over Noriega’s alleged criminal activities.
   2. Noriega’s status as a head of status (through which he claims immunity) is irrelevant in the consideration of whether the US has extraterritorial jurisdiction over his criminal activities, which is the only issue here.
   3. The extraterritorial jurisdiction analysis applied:
      1. Whether the US has the power to reach the conduct in question under traditional principles of international law; and
      2. Whether the statutes under which the defendant is charged are intended to have extraterritorial effect.
   4. Held: US has jurisdiction over Noriega. He was involved in a proven conspiracy to bring a great deal of cocaine into the US, which would be criminal quite harmful to the US. Relevant case law and statutes support extraterritorial jurisdiction in such situations.
   5. District court also considered Noriega’s move to dismiss the indictment on grounds of illegal arrest – that the US government’s seizing him via invading Panama was legally unacceptable.
   6. A court can’t be divested of jurisdiction (i.e., the right to try a defendant) simply because the defendant was brought before the court by illegal means. (Ker-Frisbie)\
   7. Despite Noriega’s claims that the Toscanino exception protects him, as the US invasion of Panama was brutal “shocking to the conscience,” he doesn’t show that the US violated his personal rights in any way.
   8. Noriega had no private right of action to assert that the US had violated international law without a protest by the sovereign government.
   9. The court declined to use its “supervisory authority” to dismiss the indictment because the US’s actions did not constitute flagrant abuses of the legal system and dismissal was not necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.