A Case For The Due Process Right To A Speedy Extradition
|FIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|In Martinez v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that treaty language in the United States-Mexico Extradition Treaty does not provide for a speedy extradition. The debate in Martinez focused mainly on the interpretation of a "lapse of time" provision in that treaty, and on whether that provision incorporates by reference the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Similar to the Sixth Circuit in Martinez, this Article discusses the right to a speedy proceeding in extradition, but not through the interpretation of treaty language. This Article argues that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment confers that right directly. |Courts acknowledge that relators, or those subject to extradition proceedings, have due process rights. These same courts, however, refuse to extend such rights to protect relators from the prejudices of government delay. When faced with due process issues, extradition courts generally avoid applying balancing tests, such as the one from Mathews v. Eldrige, and instead make formalistic or categorical distinctions to reach their conclusions. These categorical distinctions have led courts to hold that certain procedural safeguards demanded by relators are not required by due process. Thus, courts have refused to consider evidence of torture brought up by relators, have held that the government may establish its case partially or totally on hearsay evidence, and have refused to protect relators from pre-accusation delay...
|Creighton University School of Law
|A Case For The Due Process Right To A Speedy Extradition
|Creighton Law Review