18 U.S.C. § 3192
Protection of accused
Whenever any person is delivered by any foreign government to an agent of the United States, for the purpose of being brought within the United States and tried for any offense of which he is duly accused, the President shall have power to take all necessary measures for the transportation and safekeeping of such accused person, and for his security against lawless violence, until the final conclusion of his trial for the offenses specified in the warrant of extradition, and until his final discharge from custody or imprisonment for or on account of such offenses, and for a reasonable time thereafter, and may employ such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, as may be necessary for the safe-keeping and protection of the accused.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1948–2021 · leading case: Roger Day, Jr. v. Donald Trump
Roger Day, Jr. v. Donald Trump (2017)
“Before being sentenced, appellant filed a pro se motion to vacate his convictions, arguing, among other things, that he had been tried on the basis of a charge or evidence outside the grant of extradition in violation of the international “rule of specialty,” the extradition…”
United States v. Sam Merit (1992)
“Because a warrant never issued, Merit argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3192 barred the exercise of in personam jurisdiction by the district court.”
State v. Pang (1997)
“Section 5275 is now codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3192 and differs only in that the words "crimes or *904 offences” have been replaced with the word "offenses.”
Chandler v. United States (1948)
“§ 5275 [now 18 U.S.C.A. § 3192 ], a person who had been extradited to this country for trial upon a particular offense could not thereafter be arrested and brought to trial for a different offense until he had a reasonable opportunity to return to the country of asylum.”
Charles Laurent Fiocconi and Jean Claude Kella v. Attorney General of the United States (1972)
“Although we are here concerned with a crime not within the Extradition Convention, Article III provides some indication of the limits of It *482 aly’s concern with the prosecution of persons whom it surrenders to the United States and of the conditions upon which extradition…”
United States v. Apodaca (2017)
“Nevertheless, Agustin’s contention falls far short of violating the Rule of Specialty, which poses no obstacle to admission of post-indictment evidence against him. The Rule of Specialty is a doctrine that “an internationally extradited defendant may be tried only ‘for the…”
United States v. Vreeken (1984)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3192 . The Court in Rauscher concluded that this was a congressional construction of the purpose and meaning of the rule of speciality, and that it conferred a right on those extradited under such a provision.”
State v. Pang (1997)
“Section 5275 is now codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3192 and differs only in that the words "crimes or offences" have been replaced with the word "offenses.”
Gaylor v. Warden, NHSP (2006)
“His argument is difficult to follow but it appears to be based on the assumption that he is in federal custody rather than state custody because he is subject to the control of the President pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3192 . This -18- argument is unavailing because Gaylor plainly…”
Roger Day, Jr. v. T. J. Watson (2020)
“In this suit, Day invokes 18 U.S.C. § 3192 , codifying the Rule of Specialty, a principle of * We have agreed to decide this appeal without oral argument because the briefs and the record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly…”
Roger Day, Jr. v. T. J. Watson (2020)
“In this suit, Day invokes 18 U.S.C. § 3192 , codifying the Rule of Specialty, a principle of * We have agreed to decide this appeal without oral argument because the briefs and the record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly…”
Roger Day, Jr. v. T. J. Watson (2020)
“In this suit, Day invokes 18 U.S.C. § 3192 , codifying the Rule of Specialty, a principle of * We have agreed to decide this appeal without oral argument because the briefs and the record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly…”
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.