Jurisdiction, Treaties, and Due Process

Iraola analyzes exceptions to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, which permits courts to exercise jurisdiction over defendants whose presence was obtained through forcible abduction. Under the doctrine, a court's power to try a defendant is not ordinarily affected by the manner of securing the defendant's presence, resting on the principle that due process is satisfied when one presents in court after fair appraisal and constitutional safeguards. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Alvarez-Machain that if an extradition treaty between nations contains an exclusive provision making treaty the only means to secure custody, the Ker-Frisbie doctrine will not apply. The article analyzes developing case law on two exceptions to Ker-Frisbie: the treaty exception and government conduct exception. Part I examines background, discussing Supreme Court cases formulating the doctrine. Part II reports the treaty exception's development through Alvarez-Machain, establishing that for extradition to be the sole method, treaties must expressly provide. Part III analyzes United States v. Toscanino, which originally promulgated a government conduct exception for outrageous government conduct in procurement, though its continuing validity remains suspect following subsequent decisions dismissing such claims. Iraola evaluates how courts have applied these holdings and assesses implications of Alvarez-Machain for extradition methodology.

Topics: International Law · Constitutional Law · Evidence & Procedure

Keywords: Ker-Frisbie doctrine · jurisdiction · extradition treaties · Alvarez-Machain · due process · forcible abduction · government conduct · international law