Hilton v. Kerry, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Hilton v. Kerry, 1st Cir. (2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hilton-v-kerry-1st-cir-2014 1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2444

ALEXANDER HI LTON,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

J OHN KERRY, Uni t ed St at es Secr et ar y of St at e; ERI C H. HOLDER,Uni t ed St at es At t orney General ; J OHN GI BBONS, Uni t ed St at es

Mar shal , Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s,

Respondent s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ti mot hy S. Hi l l man, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Howard and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Moni ca R. Shah, wi t h whom Norman Zal ki nd and Zal ki nd Duncan &Ber nst ei n LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Theodore B. Hei nr i ch, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ees.

J une 12, 2014



LYNCH, Chief Judge. Thi s i s an appeal f r om a deni al of

a habeas cor pus pet i t i on aski ng t he cour t t o bl ock ext r adi t i on.

Upon r ecei vi ng an of f i ci al r equest f r om t he Uni t ed

Ki ngdom, t he Uni t ed St at es sought ext r adi t i on of Al exander Hi l t on,

a Uni t ed St ates ci t i zen, t o f ace an at t empt ed mur der char ge i n

Scot l and. Hi l t on ar gued t hat , because of hi s ment al heal t h

pr obl ems, he may not be ext r adi t ed because ext r adi t i on woul d cause

hi m an i ncr eased r i sk of sui ci de, and so vi ol at e hi s Fi f t h

Amendment r i ght t o due process under t he Uni t ed Stat es

Const i t ut i on. I n addi t i on, Hi l t on ar gued t hat he may not be

ext r adi t ed because t r i al under t he Scot t i sh j ur y syst em r equi r es

onl y a si mpl e maj or i t y f or convi ct i on and t hat woul d vi ol at e hi s

U. S. const i t ut i onal r i ght s. 1 Af t er a hear i ng, a magi st r at e j udge

f ound Hi l t on ext r adi t abl e and i ssued a Cer t i f i cat e of

Ext r adi t abi l i t y. See 18 U. S. C. § 3184.

Hi l t on t hen f i l ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus,

seeki ng t o bl ock ext r adi t i on. See 28 U. S. C. § 2241; see al so I n r e

Ext r adi t i on of Howard, 996 F. 2d 1320, 1325 ( 1st Ci r . 1993)

( expl ai ni ng t hat "nei t her par t y t o an ext r adi t i on pr oceedi ng may

chal l enge a deci si on r ender ed t her ei n by di r ect appeal " ) . The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he pet i t i on. See Hi l t on v. Ker r y,

1 Hi l t on al so al l eged a der i vat i ve vi ol at i on of t hi scount r y' s t r eat y obl i gat i ons under t he Uni t ed St at es- Uni t ed Ki ngdomext r adi t i on t r eat y, Ext r adi t i on Tr eat y Bet ween t he Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca and t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom of Gr eat Br i t ai n and Nor t her nI r el and, U. S. - U. K. , Mar . 31, 2003, S. Tr eat y Doc. No. 108–23.

-2-



No. 13- 11710- TSH, 2013 WL 5755485 ( D. Mass . Oct . 22, 2013) . We

af f i rm t he di s t r i ct cour t .

I .

A. Al l egat i ons

Hi l t on at t ended t he Uni ver si t y of St . Andr ews i n Scot l and

f r omSept ember 2009 t hr ough March 2011. Uni t ed Ki ngdomaut hor i t i es

al l ege t hat on or about March 5, 2011, Hi l t on at t empt ed t o mur der

a f el l ow st udent , Rober t For bes, by spi ki ng a bot t l e of wi ne wi t h

met hanol , gi vi ng t he bot t l e t o For bes, and encour agi ng hi mt o dr i nk

t he cont ent s. Because of Hi l t on' s cont i nuous encour agement , t he

al l egat i ons cont i nue, For bes drank most of t he cont ent s of t he

bot t l e. For bes was l at er hospi t al i zed. Accor di ng t o t he r equest

f or ext r adi t i on, a t r eat i ng neur ol ogi st "i s of t he opi ni on t hat i f

[ Forbes] had not r ecei ved medi cal t r eat ment t hen he may have

sust ai ned ki dney f ai l ur e or ot her neur ol ogi cal def i ci t . Due t o t he

hi gh l evel s of aci d i n hi s bl ood t hi s woul d have r esul t ed i n hi s

deat h. " For bes i s al l eged t o have l ost i ni t i al l y hi s eyesi ght as

a r esul t of t he i nci dent , t hough i t has si nce i mpr oved. For bes

cont i nues t o r equi r e and recei ve medi cal t r eat ment .

Fol l owi ng t he i nci dent , pol i ce r ecover ed evi dence t hat

Hi l t on had pur chased a pl ast i c f unnel and gl ass measur i ng j ug f r om

a l ocal st or e. I n addi t i on, pol i ce r ecover ed Hi l t on' s l apt op,

anal ysi s of whi ch showed t hat a user had on March 7, 2011 - - t wo

days af t er t he poi soni ng but t wo days bef or e For bes' condi t i on was

-3-



di agnosed - - accessed web pages cont ai ni ng i nf ormat i on r egardi ng

met hanol poi soni ng and t he l ong t er mef f ect s t her eof . I n addi t i on,

anal ysi s showed t hat , on an unknown dat e, a user had conduct ed

Googl e search f or "met hanol mi xed wi t h et hanol . "

Scot t i sh aut hor i t i es i nt er r ogat ed Hi l t on f or f i ve hour s

on March 11, 2011 but di d not char ge hi m at t hat t i me. On March

15, 2011, Hi l t on sought and r ecei ved a l eave of absence f r om St .

Andr ews, ci t i ng, among other t hi ngs, hi s per sonal and medi cal

ci r cumst ances ( see i nf r a) . Hi l t on l ef t Scot l and and r et ur ned t o

hi s home i n Massachuset t s on Mar ch 22, 2011. On Oct ober 11, 2012,

t he Br i t i sh Embassy submi t t ed a di pl omat i c not e f or mal l y request i ng

t hat Hi l t on be ext r adi t ed. Hi l t on was char ged wi t h at t empt ed

mur der i n Scot l and, and a war r ant f or hi s ar r est was i ssued on

December 2, 2012. On Febr uary 12, 2013, t he Uni t ed Stat es f i l ed a

compl ai nt seeki ng an ar r est war r ant and t he ext r adi t i on of Hi l t on.

Hi l t on was arr est ed on Febr uary 13, 2013.

B. Hi l t on' s Ment al Heal t h Pr obl ems

Hi l t on, now age 22, has a l ong hi st or y of ment al i l l ness

i ncl udi ng sui ci dal t hought s and i deat i on. Accor di ng t o Dr . J udi t h

G. Eder shei m, a psychi at r i st r et ai ned by Hi l t on' s counsel t o

eval uat e Hi l t on, Hi l t on suf f er s f r om"a pr i mar y psychot i c di sor der ,

a pr i mar y di sor der of t hought , " wi t h di agnost i c consi der at i ons

poi nt i ng t o schi zophr eni a, del usi onal di sor der , or gener al i zed

psychot i c di sor der .

-4-



Af t er hi s ar r est , Hi l t on was t r ansf er r ed t o Wyat t

Det ent i on Faci l i t y. I mmedi at el y, Hi l t on began t o engage i n

sui ci dal behavi or s. Of f i ci al s pl aced Hi l t on on sui ci de wat ch. Hi s

at t or neys r epor t t hat Hi l t on became i ncr easi ngl y despondent ,

r ef usi ng nut r i t i on. Whi l e det ai ned, Hi l t on al so expr essed over t

psychot i c t hought s, i ncl udi ng audi t or y, vi sual , and t act i l e

hal l uci nat i ons.

I n Dr . Eder shei m' s opi ni on, Hi l t on' s sui ci dal t hought s

and i deat i ons worsen whenever he i s away f r omhi s home and t he set

of suppor t s hi s f ami l y has put i n pl ace. She opi nes f ur t her t hat

ext r adi t i on t o Scot l and woul d gr eat l y i ncrease Hi l t on' s r i sk of

sui ci de.

C. Ext r adi t i on Pr oceedi ngs and Bai l

Ten days af t er hi s ar r est , Hi l t on f i l ed a mot i on t o

per mi t vi si t s f r om hi s t r eat i ng psychol ogi st s. The Gover nment

assent ed, and, based upon a showi ng of medi cal necessi t y, t he

magi st r at e j udge grant ed t he mot i on t he same day. Ar ound t he same

t i me, Hi l t on f i l ed a mot i on f or r el ease f r om cust ody on bai l

pendi ng ext r adi t i on pr oceedi ngs, ar gui ng, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat

hi s psychi at r i c i l l ness was sever el y exacer bat ed as soon as he was

pl aced i n cust ody. Af t er a hear i ng, t he magi st r at e j udge f ound

t hat speci al ci r cumst ances exi st ed over r i di ng the pr esumpt i on

agai nst gr ant i ng bai l i n ext r adi t i on pr oceedi ngs and t hat Hi l t on

-5-



di d not pose a ser i ous r i sk of f l i ght or danger t o the communi t y.

She or der ed hi m r el eased on condi t i ons on March 4, 2013. 2

The magi st r at e j udge hel d an ext r adi t i on hear i ng on Mar ch

7, 2013. On May 3, 2013, she i ssued a deci si on f i ndi ng Hi l t on

ext r adi t abl e t o Scot l and and, soon af t er , a Cer t i f i cat e of

Ext r adi t abi l i t y. The deci si on f ound t hat Hi l t on conceded t hat a

val i d t r eat y exi st s bet ween t he Uni t ed St at es and t he Uni t ed

Ki ngdom, t hat t he charged cr i me of at t empt ed mur der i s covered by

t he t r eat y, and t hat pr obabl e cause exi st s f or t he char ged cr i me.

Rel yi ng upon t he r ul e of non- i nqui r y, t he deci si on r ej ect ed

Hi l t on' s ar gument t hat , by subj ect i ng hi m t o Scot t i sh cr i mi nal

pr ocedur e, ext r adi t i on woul d vi ol at e hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s and,

as a consequence, cer t ai n pr ovi si ons of t he ext r adi t i on t r eat y.

The deci si on al so r ej ect ed Hi l t on' s ar gument t hat ext r adi t i on

shoul d be barr ed on humani t ar i an gr ounds, r easoni ng t hat , under t he

f eder al ext r adi t i on st at ut e, such consi der at i ons wer e pr oper l y

addr essed t o t he Secr et ar y of St at e. The magi st r at e j udge or der ed

a st ay of t he Cer t i f i cat e of Ext r adi t abi l i t y so t hat Hi l t on coul d

di l i gent l y pur sue a habeas pet i t i on.

2 Hi l t on' s cur r ent r el ease i s set t o end upon t he t er mi nat i onof habeas pr oceedi ngs. I n t he ext r adi t i on pr oceedi ngs bel ow, t hemagi st r ate j udge appears t o have l ef t open whet her , under t heext r adi t i on st at ut e, she r et ai ns aut hor i t y t o or der r el ease f or t heper i od af t er habeas proceedi ngs have t er mi nat ed but pr i or t oext r adi t i on. The Gover nment has not chal l enged bef or e t hi s cour tt he ear l i er or der grant i ng r el ease. We do not addr ess t he i ssue.

-6-



D. Habeas Pr oceedi ngs

Hi l t on f i l ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus on

J ul y 16, 2013, agai n seeki ng t o pr event hi s ext r adi t i on. See 28

U. S. C. § 2241. I n hi s pet i t i on, Hi l t on cl ai med f i r st t hat

ext r adi t i on shoul d be bl ocked because of cer t ai n f eat ur es of

Scot l and' s cr i mi nal pr ocedur e, and second t hat ext r adi t i on woul d

vi ol at e hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s because of t he r i sk he woul d

commi t sui ci de i f ext r adi t ed. Hi l t on, 2013 WL 5755485, at *2- 3.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Hi l t on' s pet i t i on on Oct ober 22, 2013.

I d. at *5. The cour t r ej ected Hi l t on' s cl ai mf or r el i ef based upon

Scot l and' s j ur y syst em, r easoni ng t hat t he r ul e of non- i nqui r y

pr event ed i t f r om l ooki ng i nt o t he f ai r ness of t he pr ocedur es t hat

awai t Hi l t on i f he i s ext r adi t ed. I d. at *2- 3. The di st r i ct cour t

al so r ej ect ed Hi l t on' s cl ai m based upon hi s ment al heal t h i ssues,

observi ng t hat "humani t ar i an concer ns, such as t he one Hi l t on

r ai ses, sur r oundi ng ext r adi t i on ar e excl usi vel y wi t hi n t he pur vi ew

of t he Secret ar y of St at e. " I d. at *4. Hi l t on had ar gued t hat hi s

ment al heal t h cl ai m was pr edi cat ed on an al l eged vi ol at i on of hi s

due pr ocess r i ght s, as opposed t o humani t ar i an concer ns, ci t i ng

Pl ast er v. Uni t ed St at es, 720 F. 2d 340, 348 ( 4t h Ci r . 1983) and I n

r e Bur t , 737 F. 2d 1477, 1482- 87 ( 7t h Ci r . 1984) . The di st r i ct

cour t r easoned, however , t hat , "[ u] nl i ke [ i n] Pl ast er and Bur t , i n

Hi l t on' s case t her e i s no act i on by t he Uni t ed St at es beyond t he

ext r adi t i on pr oceedi ng t hat mi ght vi ol at e Hi l t on' s due pr ocess

-7-



r i ght s. " Hi l t on, 2013 WL 5755485, at *4. The di st r i ct cour t

or der ed a st ay of i t s deci si on denyi ng habeas r el i ef pendi ng

appeal .

I I .

The Uni t ed St at es j udi ci ar y has a l i mi t ed r ol e i n

ext r adi t i on pr oceedi ngs. "Ext r adi t i on i s an execut i ve, not a

j udi ci al , f unct i on. " Mar t i n v. War den, At l ant a Pen, 993 F. 2d 824,

828 ( 11t h Ci r . 1993) . "Because ext r adi t i on i s a cr eat ur e of

t r eat y, ' t he power t o ext r adi t e der i ves f r omt he Pr esi dent ' s power

t o conduct f or ei gn af f ai r s. ' " Or di nol a v. Hackman, 478 F. 3d 588,

606 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Si dal i v. I . N. S. , 107 F. 3d 191, 194

( 3d Ci r . 1997) ) ; see U. S. Const . ar t . I I , § 2, cl . 2; see gener al l y

Uni t ed St at es v. Cur t i ss- Wr i ght Expor t Cor p. , 299 U. S. 304, 315- 22

( 1936) .

As such, "[ e] xt r adi t i on i s a mat t er of f or ei gn pol i cy

ent i r el y wi t hi n t he di scret i on of t he execut i ve br anch, except t o

t he ext ent t hat t he st at ut e i nt er poses a j udi ci al f unct i on. "

Lopez- Smi t h v. Hood, 121 F. 3d 1322, 1326 ( 9t h Ci r . 1997) ,

superseded by regul at i on on ot her gr ounds as r ecogni zed by

Cor nej o- Bar r et o v. Sei f er t , 218 F. 3d 1004 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) . A

j udi ci al of f i cer who presi des over an ext r adi t i on proceedi ng " i s

not exer ci si ng ' any par t of t he j udi ci al power of t he Uni t ed

St at es, ' " I n r e Ext r adi t i on of Howar d, 996 F. 2d at 1325 ( quot i ng I n

r e Kai ne, 55 U. S. ( 14 How. ) 103, 120 ( 1852) ) , but i nst ead "act s i n

-8-



a non- i nst i t ut i onal capaci t y by vi r t ue of a ' speci al aut hor i t y, ' "

i d. ( quot i ng I n r e Met zger , 46 U. S. ( 5 How. ) 176, 191 ( 1847) ) .

A. Feder al Ext r adi t i on St at ut e

Ext r adi t i on pr oceedi ngs i n t he Uni t ed St at es are gover ned

by st at ut e. See 18 U. S. C. § 3184. "The st at ut e est abl i shes a

t wo- st ep pr ocedur e whi ch di vi des r esponsi bi l i t y f or ext r adi t i on

bet ween a j udi ci al of f i cer and t he Secret ar y of St at e. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Ki n- Hong, 110 F. 3d 103, 109 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( f oot not e

omi t t ed) . Once a f or mal compl ai nt i s f i l ed, t he j udi ci al of f i cer 3

must det ermi ne whet her t her e i s an ext r adi t i on t r eaty bet ween t he

Uni t ed St at es and t he r el evant f orei gn government and whether t he

cr i me char ged i s cover ed by t hat t r eat y. 18 U. S. C. § 3184.

Assumi ng bot h quest i ons ar e answer ed i n the af f i r mat i ve, t he

j udi ci al of f i cer i ssues a war r ant f or t he ar r est of t he i ndi vi dual

sought f or ext r adi t i on ( commonl y ref er r ed t o as t he "r el at or ") .

I d. I f a war r ant i ssues, t he j udi ci al of f i cer t hen conducts a

hear i ng t o det er mi ne whet her " t he evi dence [ i s] suf f i ci ent t o

sust ai n t he char ge under t he pr ovi si ons of t he . . . t r eat y. " I d.

I f i t i s , t he j udi ci al of f i cer "shal l cert i f y" t o t he Secret ary of

St ate t hat a warr ant f or t he sur r ender of t he named i ndi vi dual "may

i ssue. " I d. ( emphases added) . The j udi ci al of f i cer must al so

3 "[ A] ny j ust i ce or j udge of t he Uni t ed St at es, or anymagi st r at e j udge aut hor i zed so t o do by a cour t of t he Uni t edSt at es, or any j udge of a cour t of r ecor d of gener al j ur i sdi ct i onof any St at e" may ser ve as t he j udi ci al of f i cer . 18 U. S. C. § 3184.

-9-



pr ovi de t o t he Secr et ar y of St at e a copy of al l t est i mony and

evi dence f r om t he ext r adi t i on hear i ng. I d.

The st at ut e commi t s t o t he sol e di scr et i on of t he

Secr et ar y of St at e t he ul t i mat e deci si on of whet her t o ext r adi t e.

See i d. § 3186 ( "The Secretary of St ate may order t he per son

commi t t ed under sect i on[ ] 3184 . . . t o be del i ver ed t o any

aut hor i zed agent of such f or ei gn gover nment , t o be t r i ed f or t he

of f ense . . . char ged. " ( emphasi s added) ) . "The Secr et ar y may

. . . decl i ne t o sur r ender t he r el at or on any number of

di scret i onar y gr ounds, i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o, humani t ar i an

and f or ei gn pol i cy consi der at i ons. " Ki n- Hong, 110 F. 3d at 109. I n

addi t i on, t he Secret ar y may at t ach condi t i ons t o t he r el at or ' s

r el ease. See J i menez v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or S. Di st . of Fl a. ,

Mi ami Di v. , 84 S. Ct . 14, 19 ( 1963) ( Gol dber g, J . , chamber s

opi ni on) ( denyi ng st ay of ext r adi t i on and descr i bi ng commi t ment s

made by Venezuel an government t o Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of St at e

as a condi t i on of sur r ender of f ugi t i ve) .

B. Rul e of Non- I nqui r y

J udi ci al i nvol vement i n t he ext r adi t i on process i s al so

const r ai ned by t he "r ul e of non- i nqui r y. " "[ T] hi s doct r i ne bar s

cour t s f r om eval uat i ng t he f ai r ness and humaneness of anot her

count r y' s cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em, r equi r i ng def er ence t o t he

Execut i ve Br anch on such mat t er s. " Khouzamv. At t ' y Gen. of U. S. ,

549 F. 3d 235, 253 ( 3d Ci r . 2008) ; see al so Munaf v. Geren, 553 U. S.

-10-



674, 700 ( 2008) ( "Such al l egat i ons are of cour se a mat t er of

ser i ous concer n, but i n t he pr esent cont ext t hat concer n i s t o be

addr essed by t he pol i t i cal br anches, not t he j udi ci ar y. ") ;

Gl ucksman v. Henkel , 221 U. S. 508, 512 (1911) ( "We ar e bound by t he

exi st ence of an ext r adi t i on t r eat y t o assume t hat t he t r i al wi l l be

f ai r . ") ; Neel y v. Henkel , 180 U. S. 109, 123 ( 1901) ( "I n t he

j udgment of Congr ess t hese [ t r eat y] provi si ons wer e deemed adequat e

t o t he ends of j ust i ce i n cases of per sons commi t t i ng cr i mes i n a

f or ei gn count r y . . . and subsequent l y f l eei ng t o t hi s count r y. We

cannot adj udge t hat Congr ess i n t hi s mat t er has abused i t s

di scret i on, nor decl i ne t o enf or ce obedi ence t o i t s wi l l as

expr essed . . . . ") . The r ul e of non- i nqui r y "ser ves i nt er est s of

i nt er nat i onal comi t y by r el egat i ng t o pol i t i cal act or s t he

sensi t i ve f or ei gn pol i cy j udgment s t hat ar e of t en i nvol ved i n t he

quest i on of whet her t o r ef use an ext r adi t i on r equest . " Hoxha v.

Levi , 465 F. 3d 554, 563 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ; see al so Koskot as v. Roche,

931 F. 2d 169, 174 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( obser vi ng t hat "ext r adi t i on

pr oceedi ngs ' necessar i l y i mpl i cat e t he f or ei gn pol i cy i nt er est s of

t he Uni t ed St at es' " ( quot i ng Escobedo v. Uni t ed St at es, 623 F. 2d

1098, 1105 ( 5t h Ci r . 1980) ) ) . 4 As t hi s cour t expl ai ned i n

4 The r ul e of non- i nqui r y i s rel at ed t o t he "act of st at e"doct r i ne, whi ch "i n i t s t r adi t i onal f or mul at i on pr ecl udes t hecour t s of t hi s count r y f r om i nqui r i ng i nt o t he val i di t y of t hepubl i c act s a r ecogni zed f or ei gn sover ei gn power commi t t ed wi t hi ni t s own t er r i t or y. " Banco Naci onal de Cuba v. Sabbat i no, 376 U. S.398, 401 ( 1964) ; see Ki n- Hong, 110 F. 3d at 111 n. 11 ( not i ngpar al l el ) ; see al so Fi r st Nat ' l Ci t y Bank v. Banco Naci onal de

-11-



Ki n- Hong, 110 F. 3d at 111, " [ i ] t i s not t hat quest i ons about what

awai t s t he r el at or i n t he r equest i ng count r y ar e i r r el evant t o

ext r adi t i on; i t i s t hat t her e i s anot her br anch of gover nment ,

whi ch has bot h f i nal say and gr eat er di scr et i on i n t hese

pr oceedi ngs, t o whomt hese quest i ons ar e more pr oper l y addr essed. "

See al so Ahmad v. Wi gen, 910 F. 2d 1063, 1067 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ( " I t i s

t he f unct i on of t he Secr et ar y of St at e t o det er mi ne whet her

ext r adi t i on shoul d be deni ed on humani t ar i an gr ounds. " ) ; Escobedo,

623 F. 2d at 1107 ( "[ T] he degr ee of r i sk t o [ t he r el at or ' s] l i f e

f r om ext r adi t i on i s an i ssue t hat pr oper l y f al l s wi t hi n t he

excl usi ve pur vi ew of t he execut i ve br anch. " ( quot i ng Si ndona v.

Gr ant , 619 F. 2d 167, 174 ( 2d Ci r . 1980) ) ) .

I I I .

On appeal , Hi l t on ar gues f i r st t hat , i n l i ght of hi s

sever e psychol ogi cal i mpai r ment s and hi gh r i sk of sui ci de, hi s

ext r adi t i on t o Scot l and woul d vi ol at e hi s Fi f t h Amendment r i ght t o

due pr ocess. As pr esent ed her e, t hi s cl ai m amount s t o a chal l enge

t o t he condi t i ons awai t i ng hi m i n Scot l and, and i s bar r ed by t he

r ul e of non- i nqui r y. Next , on appeal Hi l t on pr esses an ar gument

not f ul l y devel oped bel ow r egar di ng whet her hi s medi cal condi t i on

pr ecl udes pl aci ng hi m i n cust ody - - ei t her i n t he Uni t ed St at es or

Cuba, 406 U. S. 759, 769 ( 1972) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( expl ai ni ng t hatt he act of st at e doct r i ne was " f ashi oned because of f ear t hatadj udi cat i on woul d i nt er f er e wi t h t he conduct of f or ei gnrel at i ons") .

-12-



i n Scot l and. Thi s cl ai m, however , i s si mpl y t oo specul at i ve at

t hi s st age. 5 Fi nal l y, Hi l t on cl ai ms t hat hi s ext r adi t i on woul d

vi ol at e hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s because Scot l and al l ows si mpl e

maj or i t y j ur y ver di ct s, and t hat because t he Senate was never

appr i sed of t he Scot t i sh j ur y syst em i t di d not gi ve i t s knowi ng

advi ce and consent t o t he Uni t ed St at es- Uni t ed Ki ngdomext r adi t i on

t r eat y as r equi r ed by Ar t i cl e I I , § 2, cl . 2. The f or mer cl ai m

f ai l s under t he r ul e of non- i nqui r y, as t hi s cour t may not pass

j udgment on t he mer i t s of t he Scot t i sh j ury syst em. The l at t er

cl ai m f ai l s because i t i s not f or t hi s cour t t o consi der whet her

t he Senate' s advi ce and consent was subst ant i vel y adequate. The

Secr et ar y may choose t o assess and cr edi t Hi l t on' s cl ai ms t hat hi s

ment al heal t h st at us shoul d bar ext r adi t i on on humani t ar i an

gr ounds, and t hat he wi l l not r ecei ve an adequat e j ur y t r i al . We

wi l l not bar ext r adi t i on on ei t her basi s.

A. St andar d of Revi ew

On appeal f r om an or der denyi ng a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of

habeas cor pus, t hi s cour t r evi ews t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l egal

concl usi ons de novo, I n re Ext r adi t i on of Howar d, 996 F. 2d at 1327,

and any f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear er r or , Gomes v. Br ady, 564 F. 3d

532, 536 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Or di nar i l y, "habeas cor pus i s avai l abl e

onl y t o i nqui r e whet her t he magi st r at e had j ur i sdi ct i on, whet her

5 Whet her Hi l t on r ai sed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t pr eci sel yt he nuances he r ai ses bef or e us i s uncl ear , but t he cl ai m f ai l sunder any st andard of r evi ew.

-13-



t he of f ense char ged i s wi t hi n t he t r eat y, and . . . whet her t her e

was any evi dence warr ant i ng t he f i ndi ng t hat t her e was r easonabl e

gr ound t o bel i eve t he accused gui l t y. " Koskot as, 931 F. 2d at 171

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Fer nandez v. Phi l l i ps, 268 U. S.

311, 312 ( 1925) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . However , as

t hi s cour t has obser ved, "ser i ous due pr ocess concer ns may mer i t

r evi ew beyond t he nar r ow scope of i nqui r y i n ext r adi t i on

pr oceedi ngs. " I n r e Ext r adi t i on of Manzi , 888 F. 2d 204, 206 ( 1st

Ci r . 1989) ; see al so Val enzuel a v. Uni t ed St at es, 286 F. 3d 1223,

1229 ( 11t h Ci r . 2002) ( "Despi t e our l i mi t ed r ol e i n ext r adi t i on

pr oceedi ngs, t he j udi ci ar y must ensur e t hat t he const i t ut i onal

r i ght s of i ndi vi dual s subj ect t o ext r adi t i on ar e obser ved. ") . 6

B. Ment al I l l ness

Hi l t on ar gues t hat hi s ext r adi t i on t o Scot l and woul d

r esul t i n an i ncr eased r i sk of sui ci de and woul d t her eby i nvol ve

del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence on t he par t of t he Uni t ed St at es of f i ci al s

6 As t he Sevent h Ci r cui t expl ai ned i n I n r e Bur t :[ T] he br oad l anguage of Fer nandez, whi ch on i t sf ace woul d appear t o r est r i ct t he scope of i nqui r yher e, must be const r ued " i n t he cont ext of i t s t i meand i n t he cont ext of subsequent devel opment of t hescope of habeas cor pus r evi ew. " Onl y subsequent t o

Fer nandez di d t he Supr eme Cour t subst ant i al l yr edef i ne t he scope of habeas cor pus r evi ew, whi chpr evi ousl y had been t i ed to an exami nat i on of j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect s, t o i ncl ude an eval uat i on of whet her t he pet i t i oner i s bei ng hel d i n vi ol at i onof any of hi s or her const i t ut i onal r i ght s.

737 F. 2d at 1484.

-14-



aut hor i zi ng t he ext r adi t i on. Hi l t on' s ar gument f ai l s under t he

r ul e of non- i nqui r y.

Hi l t on emphasi zes t hat doubt s about t he abi l i t y of t he

Uni t ed St at es aut hor i t i es t o keep hi m f r om commi t t i ng sui ci de

dur i ng t he per i od l eadi ng up t o the Secr et ar y' s deci si on whet her t o

ext r adi t e subst ant i at es hi s cl ai mt hat he shoul d not be ext r adi t ed

at al l . Such doubt s, however , r est on specul at i on.

Hi l t on' s cor e ar gument i s t hat hi s ext r adi t i on t o

Scot l and woul d r esul t i n hi s suf f er i ng f r om an i ncreased r i sk of

sui ci de and, f or t hat r eason, t hat Uni t ed St at es of f i ci al s woul d

i nf r i nge upon hi s due pr ocess r i ght s by aut hor i zi ng t he

ext r adi t i on. I t r est s upon on a "st at e cr eat ed danger " t heor y of

due pr ocess. See Ri ver a v. Rhode I sl and, 402 F. 3d 27, 35 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) . The argument i s squarel y f orecl osed by t he r ul e of

non- i nqui r y. Whet her t he condi t i ons Hi l t on woul d f ace woul d have

del et er i ous ef f ect s on hi s ment al heal t h so as t o const i t ut e a bar

t o ext r adi t i on ( or r equi r e condi t i ons on ext r adi t i on) i s a quest i on

f or t he Secret ar y of St at e and not f or t hi s cour t .

Hi l t on cont ends t hat t he r ul e of non- i nqui r y has no

appl i cat i on her e because hi s al l egat i ons are di r ect ed at Uni t ed

St at es of f i ci al s as opposed t o of f i ci al s f r omt he r equest i ng st at e.

On Hi l t on' s t heor y, any chal l enge t o t he condi t i ons awai t i ng an

i ndi vi dual upon ext r adi t i on coul d be r ecast as a chal l enge t o t he

-15-



conduct of Uni t ed St at es of f i ci al s on t he basi s of but - f or

causat i on. The r ul e of non- i nqui r y i s not so easi l y ci r cumvent ed.

Hi l t on poi nt s t o Pl ast er and Bur t as ext r adi t i on cases i n

whi ch t he r ul e of non- i nqui r y di d not bar consi der at i on of a

pet i t i oner ' s due pr ocess cl ai m based upon t he act i ons of Uni t ed

St at es of f i ci al s. He mi schar act er i zes t hose cases. Bot h Pl ast er

and Bur t i nvol ved chal l enges based upon act i ons or i nact i on by

Uni t ed St at es of f i ci al s apar t f r om t he act of ext r adi t i on i t sel f .

I n Pl ast er , f or exampl e, t he pet i t i oner chal l enged t he Gover nment ' s

al l eged breach of an i mmuni t y agr eement . 720 F. 2d at 344- 45. I n

Bur t , t he pet i t i oner chal l enged ext r adi t i on on t he gr ound t hat t he

Gover nment had wai t ed f i f t een year s bef or e deci di ng t o ext r adi t e.

737 F. 2d at 1485- 86. Her e, by cont r ast , Hi l t on' s chal l enge i s

based onl y on t he f act of ext r adi t i on i t sel f and seeks t o bl ock i t .

As t he di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned:

No case l aw suggest s t hat cour t s have t heaut hor i t y t o go beyond t he l i mi t ed st at ut or i l ypr escr i bed i nqui r y when t he ext r adi t i on i t sel f i s t he onl y act i on chal l enged. I nst ead, t hecase l aw cl ear l y shows t hat when humani t ar i anconcer ns sur r oundi ng t he ext r adi t i on ar er ai sed, i ncl udi ng t hose i nvol vi ng danger t ot he r el at or ' s l i f e, t hey ar e f or t he Secret ar yof St at e t o consi der .

Hi l t on, 2013 WL 5755485, at *4. 7

7 Hi l t on ar gues t hat t he pr i nci pl e of r eci pr oci t y counsel s i nf avor of j udi ci al consi der at i on of humani t ar i an concer ns t o t heext ent t hat t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom i nst r uct s i t s cour t s, whenconsi der i ng a request f or ext r adi t i on, t o t ake such consi der at i onsi nt o account . See Uni t ed Ki ngdom Ext r adi t i on Act , 2003, 41, § 91

-16-



I n an ef f or t t o avoi d t hi s out come, Hi l t on i nvokes

Gal l i na v. Fraser , 278 F. 2d 77 ( 2d Ci r . 1960) . I n t hat case, t he

Second Ci r cui t expr essed some hesi t at i on t oward t he r ul e of

non- i nqui r y, opi ni ng t hat i t coul d "i magi ne si t uat i ons wher e t he

r el at or , upon ext r adi t i on, woul d be subj ect t o pr ocedur es or

puni shment so ant i pat het i c t o a f eder al cour t ' s sense of decency as

t o r equi r e r eexami nat i on of t he pr i nci pl e [ of non- i nqui r y] . " I d.

at 79. Thi s cour t expr essed a si mi l ar possi bl e caveat i n Ki n- Hong.

110 F. 3d at 112 ( "None of t hese pr i nci pl es, i ncl udi ng non- i nqui r y,

may be r egarded as an absol ut e. " ) . No cour t has yet appl i ed such

a t heor et i cal Gal l i na except i on. Hoxha, 465 F. 3d at 564 n. 14. I t

does not hel p Hi l t on her e and we decl i ne t o appl y such an

except i on.

These ar guments may be made t o t he Secr et ar y. I n

addi t i on, Hi l t on may r equest t hat t he Secr et ar y of St at e, i n an

exer ci se of di scr et i on, at t ach condi t i ons t o Hi l t on' s ext r adi t i on

ensur i ng hi s saf et y i n Scot l and. I t i s not t he r ol e of t hi s cour t

t o suppl ant t he Secr et ar y' s aut hor i t y t o r espond t o such a request .

Cf . Cl apper v. Amnest y I nt ' l USA, 133 S. Ct . 1138, 1149 ( 2013)

( hol di ng t hat har mal l eged i s not cogni zabl e wher e i t i s based upon

( i nst r uct i ng cour t s t o det er mi ne whet her " t he physi cal or ment alcondi t i on of t he per son i s such t hat i t woul d be unj ust oroppr essi ve t o ext r adi t e hi m") . The Uni t ed Ki ngdom del egat esconsi der at i on of humani t ar i an concer ns t o t he j udi ci ar y whi l e, i ncont r ast , t he Uni t ed St at es del egat es such consi der at i ons t o t heexecut i ve. That di f f er ence i s not evi dence of l ack of r eci pr oci t y.

-17-



"specul at [ i on] as t o how [ Execut i ve Br anch of f i ci al s] wi l l exer ci se

t hei r di scret i on") .

We t ur n br i ef l y t o Hi l t on' s newl y pr esent ed ar gument . As

conf i r med by counsel at or al ar gument , t he r el i ef Hi l t on seeks i n

t hi s habeas act i on i s an or der bar r i ng hi s ext r adi t i on t o Scot l and.

He r ai ses, i n f ur t her pur sui t of t hat r el i ef , what pur por t s t o be

a due pr ocess chal l enge based upon hi s pr e- ext r adi t i on det ent i on i n

t he Uni t ed St at es.

Hi l t on ar gues speci f i cal l y t hat t he Gover nment cannot

compl y wi t h i t s obl i gat i on t o addr ess hi s hi gh r i sk of sui ci de i f

he i s det ai ned and so pr e- ext r adi t i on det ent i on woul d r esul t i n

"del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence" t o t hat r i sk on t he par t of Uni t ed St at es

of f i ci al s. Hi l t on r el i es on a f i ndi ng by t he magi st r at e j udge i n

t he or der gr ant i ng Hi l t on' s r el ease f ol l owi ng a bai l hear i ng t hat

Hi l t on' s "ser i ous psychi at r i c condi t i on i s l i kel y t o det er i or at e i f

he i s hel d i n cust ody. " At t he bai l hear i ng, t he Gover nment

"conceded t hat i npat i ent hospi t al i zat i on at a ment al heal t h

f aci l i t y may be appr opr i at e i n t hi s case" and t hat " t her e ar e no

f eder al secur e ment al heal t h f aci l i t i es f or pr et r i al det ai nees

where Hi l t on coul d be housed and t r eat ed. " At t hat same hear i ng,

however , t he Gover nment al so sai d i t woul d l ocat e a t hi r d- par t y

i npat i ent f aci l i t y at whi ch Hi l t on' s medi cal needs coul d be met .

We di sagr ee wi t h Hi l t on t hat he has est abl i shed t hat t he

Government i s unabl e t o pr ovi de pr oper car e and saf ekeepi ng f or

-18-



hi m. 8 We have no r eason t o expect t hat t he Gover nment , havi ng now

been made acut el y awar e of Hi l t on' s ment al heal t h condi t i ons, wi l l

be i nsensi t i ve t o t hat i ssue goi ng f or war d. I ndeed, we not e t hat

t he Gover nment di d assent t o Hi l t on' s mot i on t o be seen by hi s

t r eat i ng psychol ogi st once he began t o psychol ogi cal l y det er i or at e

af t er f i r st bei ng t aken i nt o cust ody. At t hi s j unctur e, Hi l t on' s

cl ai ms concer ni ng t he condi t i ons of hi s pr e- ext r adi t i on det ent i on

ar e t oo specul at i ve f or t hi s cour t t o consi der . See Cl apper , 133

S. Ct . at 1149. At t hi s st age, Hi l t on can and shoul d expr ess hi s

medi cal concer ns t o t he Secr et ar y, not t he j udi ci ar y.

C. Scot l and' s Si mpl e Maj or i t y J ur y Tr i al

Hi l t on ar gues t hat ext r adi t i on f or t r i al i n Scot l and - -

wher e a si mpl e maj or i t y of j ur or s i s suf f i ci ent t o r et ur n a gui l t y

ver di ct - - woul d vi ol at e hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s because t he

Senat e was not awar e of t hi s aspect of Scot t i sh cr i mi nal pr ocedur e

when i t consent ed to t he Uni t ed St at es- Uni t ed Ki ngdom ext r adi t i on

t r eat y. I n ef f ect, Hi l t on asks t hi s cour t t o decl ar e t hat t he

Senat e' s " [ c] onsent " t o t he t r eat y was not suf f i ci ent l y i nf or med

f or purposes of Art i cl e I I , § 2, cl . 2. Hi l t on' s cl ai m evi nces a

f undament al mi sunder st andi ng of our Const i t ut i on' s separ at i on of

power s.

8 We assume wi t hout deci di ng t hat t he "del i ber atei ndi f f er ence" st andar d appl i es i n t he cont ext of pr e- ext r adi t i ondet ent i on.

-19-



Hi l t on' s ar gument i s bui l t on t wo pr emi ses. Fi r st ,

ci t i ng Bur ch v. Loui si ana, 441 U. S. 130, 139 ( 1979) ( hol di ng t hat

convi ct i on on t he basi s of a f i ve- t o- one maj or i t y of a si x per son

j ury was i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a j ury

t r i al ) , Hi l t on says t hat , as a l egal mat t er , convi cti on on t he

basi s of a si mpl e maj or i t y of a f i f t een per son j ur y woul d conf l i ct

wi t h t he Si xt h Amendment ' s j ur y t r i al r equi r ement . Second, Hi l t on

asser t s t hat , as a hi st or i cal mat t er , t he Senat e was not i nf or med

of Scot l and' s j ur y t r i al pr acti ce pr i or t o consent i ng t o t he

t r eat y. Fr om t hi s, Hi l t on i nf er s t hat hi s ext r adi t i on woul d be

vi ol at i ve of hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al .

As t o Hi l t on' s f i r st pr emi se, i t i s wel l set t l ed t hat

"sur r ender of an Amer i can ci t i zen r equi r ed by t r eat y f or pur poses

of a f or ei gn cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng i s uni mpai r ed by an absence i n t he

f or ei gn j udi ci al syst emof saf eguar ds i n al l r espect s equi val ent t o

t hose const i t ut i onal l y enj oi ned upon Amer i can t r i al s. " Hol mes v.

Lai r d, 459 F. 2d 1211, 1219 ( D. C. Ci r . 1972) ; accor d Neel y, 180 U. S.

at 123. The r ul e of non- i nqui r y coul d not st and ot her wi se. See

Ki n- Hong, 110 F. 3d at 110 ( "Under t he r ul e of non- i nqui r y, cour t s

r ef r ai n f r om' i nvest i gat i ng t he f ai r ness of a r equest i ng count r y' s

j udi ci al syst em' . . . . " ( quot i ng I n r e Ext r adi t i on of Howar d, 996

F. 2d at 1329) ) .

Her e t oo Hi l t on i nvokes t he Gal l i na except i on. Thi s

ar gument pl ai nl y f ai l s. I n Ki n- Hong, f or exampl e, t hi s cour t f ound

-20-



t hat ext r adi t i on of a r el at or t o Hong Kong was consi st ent wi t h i t s

"sense of decency, " r easoni ng t hat t he rel at or was " want ed f or

. . . act i vi t i es whose cr i mi nal i t y i s f ul l y r ecogni zed i n t he

Uni t ed St at es. Hi s ext r adi t i on [ was] sought by . . . a col ony of

Gr eat Br i t ai n, whi ch . . . i s one of t hi s count r y' s most t r ust ed

t r eat y par t ner s. " 110 F. 3d at 112. For si mi l ar r easons, we f i nd

no occasi on t o appl y t he Gal l i na except i on her e wher e ext r adi t i on

i s sought by a count r y wi t hi n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom.

As t o Hi l t on' s second pr emi se, t he suggest i on t hat t hi s

cour t may si t i n j udgment of t he Senat e i n i t s per f or mance of i t s

advi ce and consent dut i es i s wi t hout basi s. Hi l t on ci t es no case

i n suppor t of hi s ambi t i ous concept i on of t he j udi ci al r ol e. Thi s

l ack of suppor t i s unsur pr i si ng. For "[ t ] he conduct of t he f or ei gn

r el at i ons of our gover nment i s commi t t ed by the Const i t ut i on t o t he

execut i ve and l egi sl at i ve - - ' t he pol i t i cal ' - - depar t ment s of t he

government , and t he pr opr i ety of what may be done i n t he exer ci se

of t hi s pol i t i cal power i s not subj ect t o j udi ci al i nqui r y or

deci si on. " Oet j en v. Cent . Leat her Co. , 246 U. S. 297, 302 ( 1918) ;

cf . Wi l l i ams v. Suf f ol k I ns. Co. , 38 U. S. 415, 420 ( 1839)

( obser vi ng t hat , wi t h r espect t o quest i ons of f or ei gn r el at i ons,

"i t i s not mat er i al t o i nqui r e, nor i s i t t he pr ovi nce of t he Cour t

t o det er mi ne, whet her t he execut i ve be r i ght or wr ong. I t i s

enough t o know, t hat i n t he exer ci se of hi s const i t ut i onal

f unct i ons, he has deci ded t he quest i on" ) .

-21-



Hi l t on concedes t hat t he cr i me charged i s cover ed by t he

t r eaty. He does not cont est t hat t he Senat e consent ed t o t he

t r eat y wi t h t he r equi si t e number of vot es. See U. S. Const . ar t .

I I , § 2, cl . 2 ( r equi r i ng t hat "t wo t hi r ds of t he Senat or s pr esent

concur " ) . As t o t he adequacy of t he Senat e' s consent , t hat i s t he

end of t he mat t er .

I V.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he pet i t i on f or a wr i t of

habeas cor pus i s af f i r med.

-22-

Documents

Hilton v. Kerry, 1st Cir. (2014)