Fatal Accident Roscoe Il, Illinois Department Of Transportation Employment Verification, Articles E

[16] Further, it is not the responsibility of this Court to assess the probability that the requesting party will be able to secure a conviction. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. The Department of States's opinion is entitled to deference. Threats at the time were taken seriously, especially given the high profile murders of Tijuana's police chief in February 2000, followed shortly by the murder of Jose Patio . [37] These statements were taken in open Court, at the time that Cruz and Soto were arraigned on charges filed against them by the Republic of Mexico and based upon the statements given to the public prosecutor. Miranda also declared that Valdez had told him he and Fabian Reyes Partida, aka "Domingo", (hereinafter Reyes) had assassinated Jesus Romero Magana because he was investigating Valdez' criminal activity. Jhirad v. Ferrandina, 536 F.2d 478 (2d Cir.1976). The charge related to the 1994 event has been abandoned. Respondent's discovery request in this regard is denied. Publicado: 5/6/2021 7:10:25 PM. After receipt of the diplomatic note, Respondent was then held under the formal request for extradition and not the provisional arrest which had initiated the case. In September of 2002, a Judge of the Federal Penal Processes in Mexico State found El Lobo, La Piedra and El Capitan guilty, and sentenced them all to . [6] See ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO REOPEN EVIDENCE AND DIRECTING THE UNITED STATES TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE filed September 11, 1997 (Docket No. 577 (1901). On October 22, 1997, the Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to produce photographic evidence referenced in witness statements and related to the issue of the identity of Respondent. Soto's testimony is based upon his acquaintance with the individuals referenced in the statement, and his role as a cook residing at various times with these individuals. "The rationale is that such matters are to be determined solely by the executive branch." 1997). Mr. Valdez became a top operative in the organization, arranging drug shipments and assassinations, the Mexican and American police have charged in court. (4) Alejandro Enrique Hodoyan Palacios In his November 30, 1996 deposition, Alejandro not only discussed the murder of Gallardo and Sanchez, but he also discussed other criminal activity involving the AFO and including the activities of Respondent Valdez. Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. En una de esas fiestas fue que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales, cuando an existan. At the time of the June 30, 1997 hearing, a typed translation of Alejandro's personal notes was offered. On the other hand, the formal statements of Soto and Cruz have significant detail concerning the personal background of the witnesses and the specifics of the offenses and related matters. En septiembre de 2002, el Juzgado Cuarto de Procesos Penales Federales en el Estado de Mxico (antes Juzgado Primero de Distrito . Entre los jvenes reclutados por el narcotrfico mexicano se encentraban Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. Prior to the June 30, 1997 evidentiary hearing on the extradition requests, there were numerous other filings by the United States and by counsel for the detainee as well as several status hearings. In fact, in the statement to the district judge on October 2, 1996, Mr. Soto indicates that he has no physical defects. En septiembre de 2002, el Juzgado Cuarto de Procesos Penales Federales en el Estado de Mxico (antes Juzgado Primero de Distrito . Finally, the scope of admissible evidence in an extradition hearing is guided by the distinction between contradictory and explanatory evidence. The allegations of torture supported by some of the self serving statements of the witnesses and some factual conflicts (i.e. Respondent also challenges compliance with the Treaty, and urges his release in these proceedings, relative to the "late filing" of certified documents in this case. The principle argument regarding changed circumstances is the existence of the practice of torture by Mexican authorities. There is no corroborating evidence regarding the source, however. These individuals left his home the following day for Mexico City in a light grey Spirit automobile. [25] While there is no corroborating evidence outside of this declaration itself, that Mr. Curiel was in fact an agent of Mexico under the mutual legal assistance treaty, nor was a copy of that treaty provided, this evidence is received over respondents objection and pursuant to Article 10(6) of the Treaty and 18 U.S.C. Cruz describes his mistreatment and torture at the hands of the Mexican authorities. You're all set! In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. [41] The statement of Francisco Cabrera Castro, aka "Piedras" is offered in the Extradition of Alejandro Hodoyan Palacios, 96mg1828 AJB. Cruz declared that the group told him of multiple murders that they, including Valdez, had committed because the "boss was angry", referring to Ramon Arellano Felix. 896 (S.D.Cal.1993). [33] On June 19, 1997, Respondent filed a REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY requesting, among other things, that the Court "order the government to turn over any other relevant information which might help the detainee explain the `evidence' lodged against him" (Docket No. 2d 455 (1972). 1 Since there is no right of appeal from extradition orders, Valdez and Hodoyan filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in . Cruising the freeway between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, like any suburban commuter, Emilio Valdez Mainero seemed an unlikely assassin. Augustin also indicates that Alejandro told him that the Mexican officers intended to torture and kill Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios should he be extradited to Mexico. 5.1 is denied. A full review of the evidence, however, is the provence of the trial court in the requesting nation. In Zanazanian, the Ninth Circuit held that police reports which summarize the statements of witnesses are competent evidence, *1227 even though the same documents would be inadmissible hearsay in other contexts. The precedent of the long line of cases discussed above, supports the proposition that the consideration of a "humanitarian exception" should be left to the Department of State where it rightly belongs. 834 F.2d 1444, 1453. The Federal Rules of Evidence and of Criminal Procedure do not apply to an extradition hearing. Based on case authorities Respondent's Motion in this regard is denied. Ramn, "el Mon", organizaba las fiestas para localizar a sus objetivos y en una de ellas conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un coronel miembro de la Guardia Presidencial en la poca. The entire record supports the finding that probable cause exists with regard to homicide charges. In this regard, Respondent cites Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Treaty. Discovery is not available in extradition proceedings. Respondent asserts that Soto lost an eye as a result of the torture used by Mexico to extract his statement[39]. The United States, in fact, complied with Article 11, Paragraph 3, by its initial filing of diplomatic note 001831, on November 25, 1996 with the U.S. Embassy in Mexico. 956 (1922). In the absence of legal authority to support the court's ability to find the treaty invalid for changed circumstances or that the purpose and intent of the parties in this instance is materially different, Respondent's position in this regard is rejected. Respondent also asserts that not only have the governing administrations changed in Mexico and the United States since the 1978 signing of the Treaty, but the purpose and intent of the parties is materially different from what it was at the time the Treaty was signed. Gonzalo Curiel was made by Emilio Valdez Mainero in a bugged conversation with a convicted cocaine trafficker and government informant . Esta clula del crtel de Tijuana volvi a la luz por la nueva temporada de la serie de Netflix Mr. Valdez became a top operative in the organization, arranging drug . The "recantations" from Cruz and Soto are in the form of testimony before a judge of the First District of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the State of Mexico. No. As indicated previously, the extradition hearing is not a trial, nor a criminal proceeding providing respondent with rights available in a criminal trial at common law. Print material from AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL has also been filed. Evidence that conflicts with that submitted on behalf of the demanding party is not permitted, nor is impeachment of the credibility of the demanding country's witnesses. The documents were filed by Mexican authorities seeking extradition of two men -- Emilio Valdez Mainero, 32, and Alfredo Hodayan Palacios, 25 -- alleged to be hit men for the Arellano Felix brothers. mayo 9, 2022. Chapo Guzman gave marijuana to Gallardo so that he could move it into the United States, but afterwards, Chapo Guzman sent the Federal Police after him. Zanazanian v. United States, 729 F.2d 624, 626-27 (9th Cir.1984). Valdez _ the godfather of one of the Arellanos children _ was arrested in September in Coronado, Calif. An extradition hearing began Thursday for Valdez and another man. Miranda's testimony is not only generally consistent with the statements of others, but is based upon his acquaintance and involvement with the individuals described therein. The cohorts also said the Arellanos had on their payroll Mexican immigration agents who waved cocaine shipments across the border. Hodoyan haba estudiado en una . The papers have provided a behind-the-scenes look at an assassination already widely believed to be the work of the Arellanos. 44). It is also alleged that Respondent was in charge of cocaine and marijuana shipments for the AFO and as a leading member of the organization, was responsible for assigning code names to the other members. Finally, the United States submits evidence in the form of statements attributed to Respondent related to the disappearance and murder of Alejandro by the AFO and the organizations efforts to effect a recantation of Alejandro's November 30, 1996 deposition. In fact, Respondent urges the Court to dismiss this proceeding stating that the Mexican Attorney General's office held back these statements because of their negative impact on the probable cause analysis. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. [28] See, IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF ALFREDO HODOYAN PALACIOS, U.S.D.C. Again, no more precise recantation of the specific events exists. Support for the reliability of Soto's "recantation" (and by inference the other recantations) is offered by Respondent in an unsigned and uncertified declaration of First Seargent Vicente Ruiz Martinez, submitted on June 30, 1997 at the extradition hearing. There, Valdez told the group, "`The Baby' paid me off. Beyond that, he reports preparing a letter of resignation from the Department of National Defense under torture. 33) which is similarly denied for the reasons stated. 2d 208. Under Article 10(7) of the Treaty, the probable cause determination is to be made in accordance with the laws of requested party (here, the United States). United States v. Valdez-Mainero. I Background [12] Statement of Gerardo Cruz Pacheco to an agent of the Federal Prosecutor on October 12, 1996. Alejandro's statement, at page 13, implicates Respondent[47] in the murder. [33] As such, it is argued that the statements were not credible, nor should they support extradition in this case. United States v. Taitz, 130 F.R.D. Valdez, Martinez and Contreras, were carrying small weapons in a white Volkswagen. These issues were analyzed under that premise. (7) Evidence which, in accordance with the laws of the requested party, would justify the apprehension and commitment for the trial of the person sought if the offense had been committed there, (i.e., probable cause). 25. Valdezs attorney said some of the statements were extracted under torture. While the Court has wide latitude in admitting evidence, and hearsay evidence is admissible, the Ruiz statement is without any legally reliable corroborating or authenticating evidence in this case. Emilio Valdez Mainero and Alfredo Hodoyan were linked to the Arellano Felix drug organization, which controls the lucrative drug corridor from Baja California into the United States. However, before we can indict evidence as tainted by the coercive effect of torture, satisfactory evidence must be presented. Quines eran los narcojuniors reales de Tijuana? Emilio Valdez passed away Saturday, August 31, 2019. This evidence is clearly contradictory and inadmissible under Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. The respondent offers a handwritten declaration of Alejandro, dated March 3, 1997, to document his being detained, interrogated and tortured. 1280 (D.Mass.1997) but reversed on appeal. A few seconds passed and then he saw the white Volkswagen speed out of the parking lot. Finally, he contests the date of arrest. As to item 7, the sufficiency of the evidence, Respondent contends that the probable cause element has not been met and, therefore, there is no justification for his apprehension and commitment for extradition to Mexico. Respondent does not dispute that the Treaty requirements have been met with regard to these items with three exceptions. Defense counsel was provided for Mr. Cruz Vasquez identifies himself as a member of the AFO and states that in March, 1996, he had several visitors to his home, including Respondent Valdez, Martinez, and co-extraditee Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios. The interviews of Alejandro in the United States confirm the uncoerced willingness of Alejandro to provide testimony concerning the criminal activities of the AFO and Respondent's role therein. Get free summaries of new Southern District of California US Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Respondent urges that this Court decline extradition based upon a "humanitarian exception" in that he is likely to be tortured based upon his alleged relationship to the Arellano-Felix brothers. One of the gang's leaders, Ramon Arellano Felix, was placed on the FBI's Most Wanted list in September. Actually, this declaration is not signed by Alejandro, nor was it written by Alejandro. Miranda infuriated his boss by refusing to do the hit because he had plans to go shopping with his family. He ended up in the hospital with gunshot wounds he said were inflicted by a member of the Arellano organization. They also indicated that their boss, Ramon Arellano Felix, would be pleased with the last job they had carried out. Emilio Valdez Mainero met Ramn Arellano at a posada before Christmas 1986 in the Lomas de Aguacaliente neighborhood. These statements are also corroborated in significant part by Alejandro's declaration. Miranda also stated that in 1992, Valdez was in charge of cocaine trafficking, and that later, Valdez trafficked in 200 to 400 kilogram shipments of marijuana for the AFO. EMILIO VALDEZ-MAINERO (1) Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Specifically, Respondent submits that the Treaty is invalid because the use of torture in Mexico in obtaining evidence, including the evidence in this matter, is contrary to the law of the United States. [26] In Respondent's REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY (Docket No. These individuals returned to Mr. Vasquez' home in April of 1996 and stated that they were running from the authorities because they had committed a homicide in Mexico City. The scope of this proceeding is narrow and is limited to the existence of probable cause and the evidence, received by virtue of the Treaty provisions and applicable law. He declared that, in May, 1992, Ramon Arellano-Felix and Valdez killed rival drug traffickers, the Olmos brothers, and that Valdez told him and other members of the AFO that Valdez would pay $150,000 to them if they took the blame for the Olmos murders. [20] i.e. [47] Alejandro's testimony also implicates his brother concerning the involvement with the AFO, which relates to the pending extradition of Alfredo Hodoyan-Palacios, 96mg1828(AJB). Mexico also argued that the document was not certified as required by the treaty and would be presumptively inadmissable. The interests of Mexico were represented by the United States through the United States Department of Justice, by United States Attorney Alan D. Bersin and Assistant United States Attorney Gonzalo P. Curiel. As earlier stated, the circumstances of Alejandro's testimony are not suggestive of torture, coercion or duress. The admissibility of Miranda's statement, as taken by Assistant United States Attorney Curiel, was previously discussed. Additional documentation[4] (specifically related to the first degree murder and carrying a firearm exclusive to the Army, Navy and Air Force) were submitted by diplomatic note No. Therefore, the Court will certify the above and all documents admitted into evidence to the Secretary of State. Id. Mexico has filed the videotapes, the evidence concerning Respondent's statements regarding the 1997 abduction of Alejandro Hodoyan and the genesis of the March 3, 1997 Declaration by Alejandro Hodoyan, as well as the statements by Alejandro to U.S. agents. Respondent's roles and activities in these regards is specifically referenced. [24] A Volkswagen was seen leaving the scene by eyewitness Juan Manual de la Cruz. Mexican law defines murder (or homicide) as taking the life of another (Article 302). [38] These are the same statements offered in this matter to support the request for extradition.