18 U.S.C. § 3190
Evidence on hearing
Depositions, warrants, or other papers or copies thereof offered in evidence upon the hearing of any extradition case shall be received and admitted as evidence on such hearing for all the purposes of such hearing if they shall be properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party shall have escaped, and the certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in such foreign country shall be proof that the same, so offered, are authenticated in the manner required.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 126
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1952–2023 · leading case: Jose Munoz Santos v. Linda Thomas, 830 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016).
Jose Munoz Santos v. Linda Thomas, 830 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016). “Instead, 18 U.S.C. § 3190 provides that evidence may be admitted as long as the evidence is authenticated and would “be received for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party shall have escaped.”
Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2011). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3190 (“Depositions, warrants, or other papers or copies thereof offered in evidence upon the hearing of any extradition case shall be received and admitted as evidence on such hearing for all the purposes of such hearing if they shall be properly and legally…”
Oen Yin-Choy v. Glen S. Robinson, U.S. Marshal for the N. Dist. of California, 858 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1988). “In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 3190 which governs the admissibility of evidence in extradition cases, provides that items offered in evidence shall be received and admitted as evidence on such hearing if they shall be properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be…”
Josephine Greci v. John A. Birknes, Jr., 527 F.2d 956 (1st Cir. 1976). “Taking the standard of evidentiary competence to be that laid down in 18 U.S.C. § 3190 , the magistrate ruled that all the documents submitted were “duly certified and authenticated” as required by that provision.”
United States v. Lui Kin-Hong, A/K/A Jerry Lui, 110 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 1997). “for all the purposes of such hearing if they shall be properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party shall have escaped____ 18 U.S.C. § 3190 . 22 Proof of such…”
Samuel Shapiro v. Thomas E. Ferrandina, United States Marshal for the S. Dist. of New York, 478 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1973). “Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 3190 provides that, subject to proper certification, to be discussed below, “[ depositions, warrants, or other papers or copies thereof .”
United States v. Ernest Henry Wiebe, 733 F.2d 549 (8th Cir. 1984). “Around July 29, 1983, the Spanish Foreign Ministry sent documents in support of its extradition request to the American Embassy in Madrid for authentication pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3190 . On August 26, 1983, the American Embassy notified the State Department by telegram that the…”
Man-Seok Choe v. Torres, 525 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2008). “Choe contends this evidence cannot support a finding of probable cause because the Korean prosecutor’s summaries aren’t reliable.”
Kulvir Singh Barapind v. Jerry J. Enomoto, United States Marshal for the E. Dist. of California, 360 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2004). “§ 3190 , which governs the admissibility of evidence in extradition cases, specifies that “the certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in such foreign country shall be proof that [the documents submitted into evidence] are…”
Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk, 612 F. Supp. 544 (N.D. Ohio 1985). “18 U.S.C. § 3190 . Since the admission of properly certified evidence is obligatory on the extradition court under 18 U.”
Freedman v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Ga. 1977). “Relying upon 18 U.S.C. § 3190 , 3 the Magistrate refused to accept petitioner’s legal theory, concluding that “a diplomatic officer of the United States has certified that the warrant contained in the paper still exists, and this is admissible evidence, binding upon this Court…”
In the Matter of Jan Alf Assarsson, Relator-Appellant, 635 F.2d 1237 (7th Cir. 1980). “We agree that, once certified under 18 U.S.C. § 3190 , the statement was properly received into evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.