18 U.S.C. § 3191
Witnesses for indigent fugitives
On the hearing of any case under a claim of extradition by a foreign government, upon affidavit being filed by the person charged setting forth that there are witnesses whose evidence is material to his defense, that he cannot safely go to trial without them, what he expects to prove by each of them, and that he is not possessed of sufficient means, and is actually unable to pay the fees of such witnesses, the judge or magistrate judge hearing the matter may order that such witnesses be subpenaed; and the costs incurred by the process, and the fees of witnesses, shall be paid in the same manner as in the case of witnesses subpenaed in behalf of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1959–2019 · leading case: John Doe v. Mattis
John Doe v. Mattis (2018)
“2018) (describing process granted to persons subject to extradition); 18 U.S.C. § 3191 . The government, in that respect, relies on its having made a "good-faith determination, supported by extensive record evidence, that [Doe] is an enemy combatant.”
John Doe v. James Mattis (2018)
“2018) (describing process granted to persons subject to extradition); 18 U.S.C. § 3191 . The government, in that respect, relies on its having made a "good-faith determination, supported by extensive record evidence, that [Doe] is an enemy combatant.”
Jaime J. Merino v. United States Marshal (1964)
“§ 1781 and 18 U.S.C. § 3191 . Rule 15(a) provides for defense depositions under certain situations in the course of Federal prosecutions and provides that the appropriate motion must be made “after the filing of an indictment or information * * Such rule does n°t provide for the…”
In re the Extradition of Singh (1987)
“18 U.S.C. § 3191 provides: On the hearing of any case under a claim of extradition by a foreign government, upon affidavit being filed by the person charged setting forth that there are witnesses whose evidence is material to his defense, that he cannot safely go to trial…”
In re the Extradition of Koskotas (1989)
“Moreover, Koskotas presents nothing to suggest that any of his discovery requests would produce “explanatory” evidence.”
Marcos Perez Jimenez v. Manuel Aristeguieta, Intervenor, and John E. Maguire (1962)
“as charged is refuted by the above quoted statement of Judge Whitehurst that “each of these specifications is supported by the evidence” and by his certification to the Secretary of State that the evidence submitted sustains each of the charges of financial crimes separately and…”
Gallina v. Fraser (1959)
“Relator’s position is that he is entitled to have these and other witnesses subpoenaed in his behalf under 18 U.S.C. § 3191 , which concerns the securing of witnesses for indigent fugitives in extradition hearings.”
In Re the Extradition of Demjanjuk (1984)
“Under 18 U.S.C. § 3191 , the respondent may present witnesses in his behalf.”
First National City Bank v. Aristeguieta (1960)
“In support of its position that subpoena power exists, Venezuela cites 18 U.S.C. § 3191 , which provides for payment of costs and fees of witnesses subpoenaed by indigent fugitives, and contends that this statute discloses a Congressional assumption that the power of subpoena at…”
In Re Extradition of Batchelder (2007)
“18 U.S.C. § 3191 . The offense or offenses charged must be included in the particular treaty as “extraditable” offenses.”
John Doe v. James Mattis [REISSUED OPINION] (2019)
“2018) (describing process granted to persons subject to extradition); 18 U.S.C. § 3191 . The government, in that respect, relies on its having made a “good-faith determination, supported by extensive record evidence, that [Doe] is an enemy combatant.”
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.