1462, 1469 (S.D.Tex.1992). 28). 970 (1925); the probable cause is sustained if competent evidence to establish reasonable grounds is presented, not necessarily evidence competent to convict. 96mg 1828(AJB). This issue was not challenged by the Respondent. Get free summaries of new Southern District of California US Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! As a result, the Court finds Treaty compliance in this respect and denies Respondent's request for release on this basis. Valdez "hires young assassins who belong to Tijuana's upper class," according to the statement by Francisco Molina Ruiz, commissioner of Mexico's National Institute for the Combat of . The indicia of reliability is in favor of the formal statements given to the Mexican authorities by Soto and Cruz and not their in court "recantations." Respondent's discovery request in this regard is denied. Background. Specifically, the tape of the interview with Miranda, all notes and interview sheets, and documentation concerning Assistant United States Attorney Curiel's agency on behalf of Mexico. Barrett v. United States, 590 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. The principle argument regarding changed circumstances is the existence of the practice of torture by Mexican authorities. Ramn y Arturo se la pasaban en fiestas y en una de conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue miembro de los guardias presidenciales. Entre los narcojuniors reales de Tijuana tambin estaba Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un empresario prominente en la ciudad . [22] The individuals related to this case are often referred to in the evidence by nicknames. California. Id. Soto contends that he was arrested on September 12, 1996 and held in custody for some weeks. 40). emilio valdez mainero. While obviously nervous as he recounts the AFO's activities, there are no signs of physical abuse or manifestations consistent with psychological pressure or duress. By Molly Moore. Peryea v. United States,782 F. Supp. [27] Soto actually made a series of statements relative to this matter. The law limits extradition to circumstances where the Treaty is in full force and effect. There is no authority that exists that requires a magistrate judge to authorize compelled disclosures of explanatory information. The . Treaties, by design, live well beyond the administration involved in their enactment. The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. Cruz describes his mistreatment and torture at the hands of the Mexican authorities. 23. 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. The Department of Justice shall prepare a certification consistent with this memorandum as required by 18 U.S.C. 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. Cruz declared that in April 1996, he received a message from Martinez instructing him to meet at the Glorieta del Angel at 6:00 p.m. At that location, Cruz met with Valdez, Martinez and Contreras. The suggestion of torture is certainly present in the record. Valdez also faces charges of arranging the sale of a kilogram of heroin to a fellow inmate through friends outside prison. In Shapiro v. Ferrandina,355 F. Supp. Quines son los narcojuniors en los que est basada la historia . Some federal and local officials said the mens statements are not credible because they are clear attempts to land a sweetheart deal. At the time, Emilio Valdez Mainero, a member of the Arellano Flix cartel, said in a bugged conversation with a inmate-turned-informant that he wanted to kill Curiel. at 952. When they reached Toluca, Valdez and Martinez stopped to make several telephone calls, at approximately 9:00 p.m. *1214 (3) First Degree Murder of Jesus Gallardo Vigil and Jesus Sanchez Angulo in violation of Article 302; Article 303, Sections I and III, Article 315 and Article 320 of the Penal Code for the Federal District. Magistrate No. 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. Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. [21] The real issue in this proceeding is whether or not there is probable cause to establish that Respondent was one of the perpetrators. Alejandro provides an unrestrained narrative discussion of various events and circumstances, prompted by periodic questions and all simultaneously recorded in an office on CPU's. C. Fausto Soto Miller, aka "Chef" In his September 27, 1996[27] declaration before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor, Fausto Soto Miller, "Chef," (hereinafter *1221 "Soto") stated that he was aware of the personal problems between Valdez and Gallardo, arising out of a threat with a firearm against Gabriel Valdez made by Gallardo. The Treaty between the United States and Mexico calls for probable cause to be measured by the standards established in the requesting country. Background. The contours of the extradition proceeding were shaped by the Treaty and statute. 3187 allow for the provisional arrest and detention of a fugitive in advance of the presentation of formal proofs. This is defined as an individual who is a member of a group or gang of three or more persons whose purpose is to carry out criminal activity (Article 164). at 1450-1451. This is in contrast to the September 27, 1996 arrest date noted in the statement to the federal prosecutor. In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. Concerning the murder and firearms charge, it is alleged that on April 9, 1996, at approximately 9:30 p.m., in the restaurant at the Holiday Inn in Toluca, Mexico, Jesus Gallardo Vigil, aka "El Bebe", (hereinafter "Gallardo"), and Jesus Sanchez Angulo (hereinafter "Sanchez") were shot and killed by Respondent and Fabian Martinez Gonzalez, aka "Tiburon", (hereinafter "Martinez"). [33] As such, it is argued that the statements were not credible, nor should they support extradition in this case. These questions cannot be answered within the narrow confines of an extradition proceeding and would be most properly addressed by the Secretary of State and/or the Court in Mexico on a trial on the merits. 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. Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 635, 636 (2d Cir.1980). In contesting the accuracy of the statement of the federal prosecutor, he "rejects" the alias described to him, the reported rank in the infantry, and claims that he does not belong to the Presidential General staff but to the Presidential Guards Corps. [13] The documents themselves do not have to filed in court by the 60 day period, only received by the United States. [41] All of these individuals are described as "prisoners" in the statement. Ante una posible enfermedad terminal, Benjamn Arellano Flix pretende obtener una liberacin humanitaria, y no pagar la pena de 25 aos de prisin en Estados Unidos. "El Lobo" tambin fue capturado en los Estados Unidos junto con el tijuanense Emilio Valdez Mainero "El Radioloco", ambos extraditados a Mxico en enero de 1998 y tambin remitidos a Almoloya de Jurez. A Supplemental Complaint was filed and Respondent was arraigned thereon on October 16, 1996. Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 635 (2d Cir.1980). 1992); Fed.R.Evid. An injury to the anterior upper third of his right leg is claimed to have resulted from a fight with an unknown person. 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. Respondent has no right to rebut prosecutorial evidence (here, the basis and procedural compliance with the laws of Mexico as well as the determination of probable cause to issue the warrant in Mexico). Recanting statements are relevant in these proceedings as they affect probable cause. Article 3 of the Treaty says, in part: In this case, that means as defined in federal law. The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. 448 (1901). The case against the juniors spilled into U.S. courts after the Sept. 30 arrest of Emilio Valdez Mainero, 32, the baby-faced son of a deceased Tijuana colonel. Respondent's request for discovery is denied. (5) Gilberto Vasquez Culebro. Alfredo Miguel Hodoyn Palacios, (a) "Lobo" u "88" , fue detenido el 30 de septiembre de 1996, en San Diego California. No applicable authority was presented on this point and prevailing authority as set forth herein supports this ruling. 5.1 is without authority and is unavailable in any event under prevailing authority. [5] This Declaration is filed in Case No. Citations Copy Citation. This element was not challenged by the Respondent. [24] A Volkswagen was seen leaving the scene by eyewitness Juan Manual de la Cruz. 1462, 1464 (S.D.Tex. 1136 (1916). [38] Specifically, Cruz was charged with homicide and Soto was charged with possession of various *1224 weapons, and a narcotics related offense (possession of marijuana). It was at one of the celebrations that they met Emilio Valdez Mainero, the son of a colonel who was once a member of the presidential guards.Later they contacted Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, who was the son of a wealthy businessman from the city.Alfredo had been born and studied in USA, so it was easier for the drug to pass through the border without generating suspicion. Mr. Valdez became a top operative in the organization, arranging drug . United States v. Valdez-Mainero. Emilio Valdez passed away Saturday, August 31, 2019. *1209 *1210 *1211 *1212 Michael Pancer, Law Office of Michel Pancer, San Diego, CA, for Emilio Ricardo Valdez. Appellant appealed the habeas corpus denial to the Second Circuit. The various activities included a number of incidents of transportation of illegal drugs and homicide. The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition. The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. 1103. A review of the evidence submitted in support of those charges meets the requirements regarding identity and probable cause sufficient to fulfill the fifth extradition requirement. Miranda also identifies Respondent as the person depicted in various photographs reference as numbers 53, 54, 55, 73 and 74. 1996) on CaseMine. 290 Brought to you by Free Law Project, . Id. Id. I Background Neely v. Henkel,180 U.S. 109, 21 S. Ct. 302, 45 L. Ed. Mexican law defines murder (or homicide) as taking the life of another (Article 302). (quoting Sindona v. Grant, 619 F.2d 167, 174 (2d Cir.1980)). The essential question is whether the indicia of reliability is on the recantation or the initial statement. 96-1798-M. United States District Court, S.D. 956 (1922). Twenty-eight days after he took office, Ibarra, along with two government agents and a taxi driver, was gunned down in a cab outside Mexico Citys airport. [1] Valdez was identified or described at various times and by different persons or in documentary evidence with nicknames or aliases. Cruising the freeway between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, like any suburban commuter, Emilio Valdez Mainero seemed an unlikely assassin. Pursuant to an extradition treaty between Mexico and the United States, Treaty 31 UST 5059, TIAS 9656 ("Treaty"), and under federal laws supplementing and implementing such treaties, 18 U.S.C. The 33-year-old Mexican . [15] The Treaty, in Article 11, and 18 U.S.C. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. The certificate is forwarded to the Department of State. [11] More fully identified as the "Criminal Code in local matters and for all the Republic in federal matters.". 1136 (1916); McNamara v. Henkel,226 U.S. 520, 33 S. Ct. 146, 57 L. Ed. 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). Bingham v. Bradley,241 U.S. 511, 36 S. Ct. 634, 60 L. Ed. On September 30, 1996, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, acting on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, presented to the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, a complaint and a formal extradition request for Emilio Valdez Mainero (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Extraditee"). Those issues will ultimately be resolved by the trial court, along with the sufficiency of the evidence regarding guilt. [42] The response from Mexico indicates that closed proceedings related to General Rebollo are ongoing in Mexico and that Ruiz is a witness therein. 253 (1910); Rice v. Ames,180 U.S. 371, 21 S. Ct. 406, 45 L. Ed. The Court is not limited in its receipt of this evidence by virtue of the lack of certification. [48] Authority for this proposition is gathered from dicta in some case law in that there is no direct authority for this proposition. Appellant then filed a writ of habeas corpus with the district court. During the drive, Contreras told Cruz that, "his friends in the white Volkswagen wanted to say hello to a fellow citizen who was in Toluca to train for boxing." 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. 2d 455 (1972).