United States v. Alvarez-Machain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| United States v. Alvarez-Machain | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued April 1, 1992 Decided June 5, 1992 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| The fact of respondent's forcible abduction does not prohibit his trial in a United States court for violations of this country's criminal laws. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Rehnquist Joined by: White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas Dissent by: Stevens Joined by: Blackmun, O'Connor |
United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the fact of respondent's forcible abduction does not prohibit his trial in a United States court for violations of this country's criminal laws. It re-confirmed the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine established in Ker v. Illinois (1886) and Frisbie v. Collins (1952).
[edit] Background
Humberto Álvarez Machaín, a Mexican physician, was allegedly involved in the 1985 kidnapping, torture, and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar by "prolonging Agent Camarena's life so that others could further torture and interrogate him."
In 1990, Álvarez was abducted from Mexico by bounty hunters hired by DEA agents and brought to trial in the United States over the protest of Mexican officials. Legal action reached the United States Supreme Court (as above) focusing upon the effect of illegal extradition upon the trial court's jurisdiction. Invoking the "Ker-Frisbie Doctrine" the U.S. Supreme Court held that the trial court's jurisdiction was not affected by the manner in which the accused was brought before it. This created international alarm and concern as other nations feared that the decision would encourage further such abductions.
Despite vigorous protests from the Mexican government, Álvarez was tried in United States District Court in Los Angeles; the trial, in which his defense focused intensely on the legality of the arrest, resulted in an acquittal. The other suspect, Javier Vasquez Velasco, was arrested for his alleged involvement in the murder, convicted, and sentenced to three life sentences. It is widely acknowledged the DEA agents arrested the latter suspect with very little tangible evidence.[citation needed]
Álvarez then sought civil tort relief against the United States and a Mexican national (a Mr. Sosa). Again the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court (124 S. Ct. 2739) and in a controversial decision the court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's exception to waiver of sovereign immunity for claims “arising in a foreign country,” , bars claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred and that Álvarez was not entitled to recover damages from Sosa under the Alien Tort Statute, .
[edit] See also
[edit] Further reading
- Roth, Brad R. (2004). "Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain; United States v. Alvarez-Machain. 124 S.Ct. 2739". The American Journal of International Law 98 (4): 798–804. doi:.
- Semmelman, Jacques (1992). "United States v. Alvarez-Machain". The American Journal of International Law 86 (4): 811–820. doi:.
- Sheptycki, J. W. E. (1996). "Law Enforcement, Justice and Democracy in the Transnational Arena: Reflections on the War on Drugs". International Journal of the Sociology of Law 24 (1): 61–75. doi:.
