Rendition (law)

Last updated

In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place.

Contents

Rendition can also mean the act of rendering, i.e. delivering, a judicial decision, or of explaining a series of events, as a defendant or witness. It can also mean the execution of a judicial order by the directed parties. But extraordinary rendition is distinct from both deportation and extradition, being inherently illegal. [1]

United States

Interstate rendition

Rendition between states is required by Article Four, Section Two of the United States Constitution; this section is often termed the rendition clause.

Each state has a presumptive duty to render suspects on the request of another state, as under the full faith and credit clause. The Supreme Court has established certain exceptions; a state may allow its own legal proceedings against a suspect to take precedence, for example. It was established in Kentucky v. Dennison [2] that interstate rendition and extradition were not a federal writ; that is, a state could not petition the federal courts to have another state honor its request for rendition, if the state receiving the request chose not to do so. If the State failed to request federal intervention, but relied on other argument for the rendition, the Hatfield/McCoy feud produced the case of Mahon v. Justice, [3] holding there is "no comity between the states by which a person held upon an indictment for a criminal offense in one state can be turned over to the authorities of another state, although abducted from the latter." [3] The Uniform Extradition Act may nullify this result in those States that have adopted it. [4]

In rare cases, usually involving the death penalty, states have refused or delayed rendition. In 1987, this was overturned by Puerto Rico v. Branstad , [5] so a federal interest in resolving interstate rendition disputes was established. Nevertheless, the right of refusal of rendition was not overturned.

Extradition for fugitives who are charged with a crime is commonly requested by state or county prosecutors. Formal interstate rendition will involve both state governors. Other procedures can involve waiving documentary formalities before surrender of the fugitive. Under the Uniform Extradition Act adopted in 48 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (but not in Mississippi and South Carolina), there is a distinction between fugitives who were in the demanding state at the time of the crime and those nonfugitives whose prior presence is not so alleged. The first type is mandatory under the United States Constitution. The less frequent second type allows for some Gubernatorial discretion. These cases can involve bad checks or failure to pay child support but they still must be criminal matters.

Bounty hunters and bondsmen once had unlimited authority to capture fugitives, even outside the state where they were wanted by the courts. When they deliver such a person, this is considered rendition, as it did not involve the intervention of the justice system in the state of capture. Under more recent law, bounty hunters are not legally permitted to act outside of the state where the offense took place, but cases of rendition still take place due to the financial interest the bondsmen have in returning a fugitive and recovering from the bail bond forfeiture. Formally, such fugitive cases should be turned over to the state for execution under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (1936) and the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (1980), if the fugitive's location is known, or the United States Marshals Service, when it is not.

Before attempting to apprehend a bail fugitive in the State of California who has fled bail from another state, a bounty hunter or bail bondsman must adhere to the provisions set forth in California Penal Code Section 847.5.

California Penal Code Section 847.5 Fugitive admitted to bail in another state; affidavit; hearing; warrant for arrest; order for return

If a person has been admitted to bail in another state, escapes bail, and is present in this State, the bail bondsman or other person who is bail for such fugitive, may file with a magistrate in the county where the fugitive is present an affidavit stating the name and whereabouts of the fugitive, the offense with which the alleged fugitive was charged or of which he was convicted, the time and place of same, and the particulars in which the fugitive has violated the terms of his bail, and may request the issuance of a warrant for arrest of the fugitive, and the issuance, after hearing, of an order authorizing the affiant to return the fugitive to the jurisdiction from which he escaped bail. The magistrate may require such additional evidence under oath as he deems necessary to decide the issue. If he concludes that there is probable cause for believing that the person alleged to be a fugitive is such, he may issue a warrant for his arrest. The magistrate shall notify the district attorney of such action and shall direct him to investigate the case and determine the facts of the matter. When the fugitive is brought to him pursuant to the warrant, the magistrate shall set a time and place for hearing, and shall advise the fugitive of his right to counsel and to produce evidence at the hearing. He may admit the fugitive to bail pending the hearing. The district attorney shall appear at the hearing. If, after hearing, the magistrate is satisfied from the evidence that the person is a fugitive he may issue an order authorizing affiant to return the fugitive to the jurisdiction from which he escaped bail. A bondsman or other person who is bail for a fugitive admitted to bail in another state who takes the fugitive into custody, except pursuant to an order issued under this section, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Special provisions exist for sworn peace officers in regards to apprehending a fugitive in the State of California, who has fled from another state as outlined in California Penal Code Sections 1551 and 1551.1

California Penal Code Section 1551 Complaint against fugitive; magistrate's warrant; attaching certified copy of complaint and affidavit to warrant

(a) Whenever any person within this State is charged by a verified complaint before any magistrate of this State with the commission of any crime in any other State, or, with having been convicted of a crime in that State and having escaped from confinement, or having violated the terms of his bail, probation or parole; or (b) whenever complaint is made before any magistrate in this State setting forth on the affidavit of any credible person in another State that a crime has been committed in such other State and that the accused has been charged in such State with the commission of the crime, or that the accused has been convicted of a crime in that State and has escaped from bail, probation or parole and is believed to be in this State; then the magistrate shall issue a warrant directed to any peace officer commanding him to apprehend the person named therein, wherever he may be found in this State, and to bring him before the same or any other magistrate who is available in or convenient of access to the place where the arrest is made. A certified copy of the sworn charge or complaint and affidavit upon which the warrant is issued shall be attached to the warrant.

California Penal Code Section 1551.1 Arrest without warrant; grounds; taking prisoner before magistrate; complaint

The arrest of a person may also be lawfully made by any peace officer, without a warrant, upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of any other state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or that the person has been convicted of a crime punishable in the state of conviction by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and thereafter escaped from confinement or violated the terms of his or her bail, probation or parole. When so arrested the accused shall be taken before a magistrate with all practicable speed and complaint shall be made against him or her under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest as in Section 1551.

Rendition was infamously used to recapture fugitive slaves, who under the Constitution and various federal laws had virtually no human rights. As the movement for abolition grew, Northern states increasingly refused to comply or cooperate with rendition of escaped slaves, leading to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. This non-cooperation was behind the longstanding principle of refusal, only reverted in the 1987 decision.

Irregular rendition

American use of “irregular rendition” is a familiar alternative to extradition, and it is the same process as extraordinary rendition. It involves kidnapping or deceit. In the view of the United States, kidnapping a defendant overseas and returning him to the United States for trial does not remove jurisdiction from American courts unless an applicable extradition treaty explicitly calls for that result. [6]

Example cases

This is a non-exhaustive list of some alleged examples of irregular rendition.

  • John Surratt, 1866

The United States exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over John Surratt, a possible co-conspirator in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Law enforcement officers returned Surratt to the United States in 1866 after he had fled to Alexandria, Egypt.

  • Frederick Ker, 1886

A Pinkerton agent, Henry Julian, was hired by the federal government to collect larcenist Frederick Ker, who had fled to Peru. Although Julian had the necessary extradition papers, he found that there was no official to meet his request due to the recent Chilean military occupation of Lima. Rather than return home empty-handed, Julian kidnapped the fugitive, with assistance from Chilean forces, and placed him on a U.S. vessel heading back to the United States. [7]

  • Shirley Collins, 1952

Shirley Collins was abducted from a bus station in Chicago, Illinois due to being a suspect in a murder case in Michigan. The authorities from Michigan went to Illinois and forcibly abducted the defendant to take him back to Michigan to get tried for the murder. He claimed that he was forcibly seized, handcuffed and blackjacked (being hit by a short leather club) by the Chicago authorities. Upon being taken to the Chicago police department he was denied counsel and blackjacked again when he refused to return to Michigan to be tried, this time it was by the Michigan and Chicago authorities.

  • Francisco Toscanino, 1974

Francisco Toscanino was forcibly abducted from Italy and taken back to the US, due to being accused of intent to smuggle narcotics into the United States. Uruguayan police forcibly abducted the Italian and gave him to the American authorities.

  • Julio Juventino Lujan, 1975

In Lujan, the defendant was abducted in a foreign country and brought to the United States to face prosecution for a narcotics violation. Lujan attacked the court's jurisdiction over his person based upon the manner in which he was apprehended.

  • Dan Davis, 2007

Dan Davis was a fugitive from the United States for more than 10 years when he was kidnapped in Venezuela by paramilitary forces and turned over to the United States Homeland Security at the airport and flown to Miami and turned over to the US Marshals Service for sentencing from his original drug charges. [8]

Extraordinary rendition

Human rights groups charge that extraordinary rendition is a violation of Article 3 [9] of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), because suspects are taken to countries where torture during interrogation remains common, [10] thus circumventing the protections the captives would enjoy in the United States or nations who abide by the terms of UNCAT. Its legality remains highly controversial, as the United States outlaws the use of torture, and the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process. Rendered suspects are denied due process because they are arrested without charges, deprived of legal counsel, and illegally transferred to a third world country with the intent and purpose of facilitating torture and other interrogation measures which would be illegal in the USA.

Other uses

Two "reform school" groups, the Aspen Education Group and WWASP, have been accused of using a contractor to kidnap teenagers from their homes or in public, to transport them to facilities around the world. Many of the youth who spent time in these schools have spoken of being abducted during the night, while outside with friends, and (in one case) staying at their boyfriend's house. The most famous of these companies is called Strawn Support Services and has agents working in every state of the US as well as in Latin American countries where WWASP schools are located. These agents often carry weapons such as tasers, mace, and occasionally firearms during transports.

See also

Related Research Articles

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual or the search and seizure of an individual's property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extradition</span> Transfer of a suspect from one jurisdiction to another by law enforcement

In an extradition, one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to the other's law enforcement. It is a cooperative law enforcement procedure between the two jurisdictions and depends on the arrangements made between them. In addition to legal aspects of the process, extradition also involves the physical transfer of custody of the person being extradited to the legal authority of the requesting jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bounty hunter</span> Person who catches fugitives for a monetary reward

A bounty hunter is a private agent working for a bail bondsman who captures fugitives or criminals for a commission or bounty. The occupation, officially known as a bail enforcement agent or fugitive recovery agent, has traditionally operated outside the legal constraints that govern police officers and other agents of the state. This is because a bail agreement between a defendant and a bail bondsman is essentially a civil contract that is incumbent upon the bondsman to enforce. Since they are not police officers, bounty hunters are exposed to legal liabilities from which agents of the state are protected as these immunities enable police to perform their functions effectively without fear of lawsuits. Everyday citizens approached by a bounty hunter are neither required to answer their questions nor allowed to be detained. Bounty hunters are typically independent contractors paid a commission of the total bail amount that is owed by the fugitive; they provide their own professional liability insurance and only get paid if they are able to find the "skip" and bring them in.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive Slave Act of 1793</span> Act of the United States Congress

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was an Act of the United States Congress to give effect to the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was later superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment, and to also give effect to the Extradition Clause. The Constitution’s Fugitive Slave Clause guaranteed a right for a slaveholder to recover an escaped slave. The subsequent Act, "An Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters", created the legal mechanism by which that could be accomplished.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extraordinary rendition</span> State-sponsored abduction and transfer to a third country

Extraordinary rendition is a euphemism for state-sponsored kidnapping in another jurisdiction and transfer to a third state. The phrase usually refers to a United States-led program used during the War on Terror, which had the purpose of circumventing the source country's laws on interrogation, detention, extradition and/or torture. Extraordinary rendition is a type of extraterritorial abduction, but not all extraterritorial abductions include transfer to a third country.

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr</span> Egyptian cleric

Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, is an Egyptian cleric. In 2003, he was living in Milan, Italy, from where he was kidnapped and tortured in Egypt. This "Imam rapito affair" prompted a series of investigations in Italy, culminating in the criminal convictions of 22 CIA operatives, a U.S. Air Force colonel, and two Italian accomplices, as well as Nasr, himself.

Khaled El-Masri is a German and Lebanese citizen who was mistakenly abducted by the Macedonian police in 2003, and handed over to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While in CIA custody, he was flown to Afghanistan, where he was held at a black site and routinely interrogated, beaten, strip-searched, sodomized, and subjected to other cruel forms of inhumane and degrading treatment and torture. After El-Masri held hunger strikes, and was detained for four months in the "Salt Pit", the CIA finally admitted his arrest was a mistake and released him. He is believed to be among an estimated 3,000 detainees, including several key leaders of al Qaeda, whom the CIA captured from 2001 to 2005, in its campaign to dismantle terrorist networks.

In the United States, extradition law is a collection of federal laws that regulate extradition, the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation.

Title 18 of the United States Code is the main criminal code of the federal government of the United States. The Title deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure. In its coverage, Title 18 is similar to most U.S. state criminal codes, which typically are referred to by names such as Penal Code, Criminal Code, or Crimes Code. Typical of state criminal codes is the California Penal Code. Many U.S. state criminal codes, unlike the federal Title 18, are based on the Model Penal Code promulgated by the American Law Institute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immunity from prosecution (international law)</span>

Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae. This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they have committed.

Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unanimously that federal courts have the power to enforce extraditions based on the Extradition Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution. The decision overruled a 1861 decision in Kentucky v. Dennison, which had made federal courts powerless to order governors of other U.S. states to fulfill their obligations in the Extradition Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abu Omar case</span> Abduction and transfer to Egypt of the Imam of Milan Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr

The Abu Omar Case was the abduction and transfer to Egypt of the Imam of Milan Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar. The case was picked by the international media as one of the better-documented cases of extraordinary rendition carried out in a joint operation by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) in the context of the global war on terrorism declared by the George W. Bush administration.

The Extradition Clause or Interstate Rendition Clause of the United States Constitution is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, which provides for the extradition of an accused criminal back to the state where they allegedly committed a crime.

Following the common law system introduced into Hong Kong when it became a Crown colony, Hong Kong's criminal procedural law and the underlying principles are very similar to the one in the UK. Like other common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong follows the principle of presumption of innocence. This principle penetrates the whole system of Hong Kong's criminal procedure and criminal law. Viscount Sankey once described this principle as a 'golden thread'. Therefore, knowing this principle is vital for understanding the criminal procedures practised in Hong Kong.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive Felon Act</span> United States federal law

The Fugitive Felon Act, abbreviated FFA, is a United States federal law that criminalizes interstate flight in order to avoid prosecution or giving testimony in state felony proceedings, a crime termed unlawful flight.

Sidney Leonard Jaffe was an American-born Canadian businessman who was kidnapped from outside his Toronto home in 1981 by American bounty hunters Timm Johnsen and Daniel Kear and transported to Florida after failing to appear for a trial there on charges of land sales fraud. His conviction on the fraud charges was overturned on appeal; his conviction on an additional charge of failure to appear for trial was upheld, but he was paroled after two years and returned to Canada. At the request of the Canadian government, Jaffe declined to appear at a new Florida trial on further land fraud charges in 1985. Johnsen and Kear were extradited to Canada and convicted of kidnapping in 1986, but were set free pending appeal, and their sentences were reduced to time served in 1989, after which they returned to the United States. The Jaffe incident caused significant tensions in Canada–United States relations, and resulted in a 1988 exchange of letters between the two countries on cross-border kidnappings.

Mehul Chinubhai Choksi is an Indian-born businessman living in Antigua and Barbuda, who is wanted by the Indian judicial authorities for criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating and dishonesty including delivery of property, corruption and money laundering. In an interview, Choksi claimed that he is innocent and all allegations against him are false, baseless and motivated by political expediency. Choksi has held Antiguan citizenship since 2017. He is the owner of Gitanjali Group, a retail jewellery company with 4,000 stores in India. An arrest warrant for Choksi has been issued in connection with the alleged Punjab National Bank fraud case. He was allegedly involved in stock market manipulation in 2013. In late May 2021, he went missing from Antigua and Barbuda. Choksi claims that he was kidnapped from Antigua by agents of the Indian state, while others stated that he fled the country. After being found and arrested in Dominica under charges of illegal entry he was then returned to Antigua and Barbuda on interim bail for medical treatment. In May 2022 the charge of illegal entry was dropped by the Dominican Government. Investigations into his disappearance are ongoing.

References

  1. ↑ Khan, Ali (13 October 2006). "Partners in Crime: Friendly Renditions to Muslim Torture Chambers". Counterpunch via Social Science Electronic Publishing. SSRN   937130.
  2. ↑ Kentucky v. Dennison 65 U.S. 66 (1860)
  3. 1 2 Mahon v. Justice – 127 U.S. 700 (1888)
  4. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987)
  5. ↑ CRS Report for Congress. Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties. Page CRS-35. Published August 3, 2007. Retrieved August 10, 2015.
  6. ↑ "Kidnapped Terrorists: Bringing International Criminals to Justice through Irregular Rendition and Other Quasi-legal Options". scholarship.law.nd.edu. Journal of Legislation.
  7. ↑ Davis, Dan “Tito” and Conti, Peter. Gringo: Living on the Edge As an International Fugitive. Full Court Press, 2016, p 303.
  8. ↑ UNCAT Article 3 "1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."
  9. ↑ Solomon, Jay (2009-03-13). "U.S. Arranging to Send Prisoners to Saudi Arabia – WSJ.com". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2012-05-31.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.