In the Matter of the
Extradition of Mario Ruiz Massieu

Sara García-Rangel and Dagoberto Orrantia

Mario Ruiz Massieu gained such notoriety during his tenure as Deputy Attorney General of Mexico that he came to be identified as a popular culture figure: he was Super Mario to his compatriots, a Mexican Elliot Ness to North Americans. And at least for now, having defeated four attempts at extradition and one at deportation, he has proved the media right: he does seem to be one of The Untouchables.

Once the case began in American courts, even the learned judges' comments sounded like movie ads. Here are some quotes, along with our translations: "a bizarre case" [un caso raro] said one; "a topsy turvy cast" [un tropel desordenado de personajes], said another. "This is a cautionary tale of corruption based on power" [un aleccionador relato de la corrupción surgida del poder], intoned a third. "The facts of this case read more like a best-selling novel" [los hechos de esta causa más se asemejan a un best-seller], marveled another. And for the judge who decided against deportation Ruiz Massieu's ordeal was "truly Kafkaesque" [verdaderamente kafkiano].

Between June and November of 1994 Mario Ruiz Massieu's brush with fame came from his efforts to root out drug trafficking in Mexico. Then, one month after Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León was elected President, Mario's brother, José Francisco Ruiz Massieu, the Secretary General of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional and the majority whip in the Chamber of Deputies, was gunned down outside a Mexico City hotel. For two months, Mario led the investigation into his brother's death. Then, abruptly and in a flurry of publicity, he resigned from his post and from membership in the PRI claiming that higher-ups and party officials were preventing him from getting at the truth about his brother's murder. In February of 1995, when Mario published his book Yo Acuso: Denuncia de un Crimen Político, and Carlos Salinas de Gortari had left the presidency, Raul Salinas, the ex-President's brother, was jailed on charges that he had masterminded the assassination of José Francisco Ruiz Massieu. On the morning of March 2, 1995, Mario was questioned by Mexican authorities concerning allegations of criminal activity. That evening he boarded a plane for Houston. The next day he was arrested at Newark airport for failing to declare forty thousand dollars in cash that he was carrying. Thus began Mario Ruiz Massieu's peregrinations through a string of court proceedings.

His failure to file a Currency Transaction Report led to a complaint for currency reporting violations. A detention hearing was scheduled for the following week. In the meantime, however, an extradition request was filed by the Mexican government; it superseded the local proceedings. The request was based on charges of obstruction of justice, intimidation and being an accesory after the fact. Here is a passage that was interpreted for the respondent:

Following Massieu's arrest [posterior a la detención de Massieu] on the currency reporting violation [por violar el requisito de declarar sumas de dinero], Mexico requested his provisional arrest for extradition for obstruction of justice [obstrucción de la justicia], intimidation [intimidación] and being an accesory after the fact [encubrimiento].

The extradition proceeded only on the obstruction charge after a Mexican judge dismissed the intimidation and concealment counts on the grounds that they were all a part of the obstruction of justice count. The formal extradition package was filed on April 27. On May 8, Mexico added the charge of embezzlement. As we know, English has recourse to either Latin or Germanic root words, and the attorneys referred variously to this offense as "embezzlement," "misappropriation of funds," "peculation," and "conversion."

On June 22, a US magistrate judge denied the request for Ruiz Massieu's extradition on the obstruction of justice charge.

A new request was filed on July 24, 1995. At that time the government moved to have the refiled obstruction request assigned to a district judge to consolidate the embezzlement request with the renewed obstruction petition. The motions were denied.

A second evidentiary hearing began on August 2, but the request for extradition was rejected on September 25. A new complaint was filed on October 10; after two months of hearings that request was also denied. At that point, the Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated deportation proceedings against Mr. Ruiz Massieu, but on February 26 of this year a district judge ruled those efforts unconstitutional. Her decision has been appealed and a final determination is pending.

While extradition hearings are not everyday occurrences, they are good examples of how judiciary interpreters can prepare for court and administrative proceedings. There are several steps that should be followed:

1. Become acquainted with the proceeding that is going to take place. Initially, this can be accomplished by reading the charges. More can be learned as the case proceeds.

2. Review the sections of the law on which the charges are based. In the case of the extradition hearing, both the foreign code and the US Code should be consulted to study similarities and vocabulary.

3. Study the "script" for a particular proceeding by reading the Federal Rules. For example, Rule 5 for Initial Appearances, Rule 11 for Retractions, and so forth. For instance, identity in an extradition hearing is similar to Rule 40, Initial Appearances, where a defendant is arrested in a different district from the one where the charges are pending.

4. Jot down key words and concepts from your preparatory reading, or write them as they are first mentioned because they are likely to recur. During recesses or adjournments, research can continue.

5. Establish a good relationship with the attorneys and paralegals so that you can request they share documents with you. Reviewing those documents is most helpful. Documents were extremely valuable in these extradition hearings, particularly for the names of affiants and institutions frequently mentioned in arguments and in the testimony of witnesses.

Extradition proceedings are similar to probable cause hearings conducted to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the accused is guilty of the crime charged and thus to justify his arrest and commitment to trial.

For an international extradition to go forward, there has to be a valid treaty between the petitioning country and the extraditing country. The one now in force between the United States and Mexico was signed on May 4, 1978. It was on the basis of this treaty that formal requests for the arrest and extradition of Ruiz Massieu were filed. Here is an example of a passage that had to be interpreted simultaneously to the defendant:

In In re United States, 713 F.2d 105 (5th Cir.1983), the court described the process of international extradition: The substantive right [el derecho sustantivo] of a foreign country to request the return [solicitar la devolución] of a fugitive and the duty of the United States to deliver [entregar] the fugitive depends entirely on the existence of a treaty between the requesting nation [la nación solicitante] and the United States.

To invoke its right to extradite [para invocar su derecho de extraditar] a fugitive, the requesting nation must submit [debe presentar] its request to a state or federal court.

The court determines whether the fugitive is subject to extradition [está sujeto a la extradición] and, if so, must order the fugitive's commitment [la detención del fugitivo] and certify [certificar] the supporting record [el acta justificativa] to the Secretary of State. The decision to surrender the fugitive then rests in the discretion of the Secretary of State.

At an extradition hearing, first the identity of the respondent has to be established. The court must be satisfied that he is the person sought by the foreign jurisdiction. In this case, the identity issue was raised during the fourth request for extradition, as a means of placing into evidence the transcripts of prior proceedings. Initially, the judge had ruled on the identity based on the testimony of the attorney who had represented Mr. Ruiz Massieu in Mexico.

The court must also determine if the offense alleged in the complaint makes the requested individual extraditable. This is the requirement of dual criminality. The principle of dual criminality requires that "the offense for which a person is extradited must be punishable as such under the laws of both the requesting and the requested nations. It is not required that the name by which the crime is described in the two countries be the same, nor that the scope of the liability be coextensive."

Since several complaints had been filed, the charges in each had to fulfill this requirement. The obstruction of justice request was based on Article 225, Section VII of the Mexican Penal Code, and it was concluded—after much debate between the parties—that the essential element of the offense in that article of the Mexican law under Title 18, Section 1512(b) was obstruction of justice.

In the embezzlement request, the Court concluded that the charge of peculado is roughly equivalent to the offense of embezzlement, and extraditable under Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the Extradition Treaty. The equivalent statutes here were Article 223, Paragraph 1 of the Mexican Code and 18 USC § 841 and § 643.

The decision on probable cause is not unlike the determination that has to be made regarding any criminal complaint brought before the Court, and for the probable cause determination in this case, extensive hearings were held. Several witnesses came from Mexico to offer their testimony, and many affidavits that had been translated into English were made part of the record. The expert testimony was characterized as "net opinion" because in their submissions the experts did not indicate or append the materials on which they had based their opinions. There were interesting legal arguments on the weight to be given that evidence.

We compiled word lists as the hearing progressed. Expressions that gave us pause were the names of government entities such as Dirección, Secretaría, and Visitaduría; job titles such as Oficial Mayor, Secretario de Gobernación, and Visitador, and judicial procedures such as amparo and consignar. As always, false cognates lurked at every turn: bienes asegurados, for example, sounds like "secured assets" but is in fact "seized assets." Suplir caused some difficulty for the interpreter who translated it as "to supply" instead of "supersede" or "replace." Sometimes the difficulty was caused by peculiar or wrong usages by the speaker. A long discussion took place around the word comprobar, because the witness used it to mean probar, "to prove," when he discussed the expenditures of moneys entrusted to Ruiz Massieu.

From the point of view of English as the source language, the usual suspects turned up: false cognates, as with the expression "probable cause;" the flexibility of English for creating derivations by means of suffixes, as in "extraditability," and the penchant of lawyers for the colorful expression: each new attempt of the Government to get a favorable ruling led the defense to complain that they were getting "another bite at the apple," and in mock outrage, Ruiz Massieu's lawyer finally shouted "Enough, McDuff!"—which of course we translated as ¡Basta, McDuff!

References

Código penal para el Distrito Federal en materia de fuero común, y para toda la República en materia de fuero federal. México: Porrúa.

"Former Mexican official, held in U.S., gains partial freedom." Anthony DePalma. The New York Times. 7 March 1996. A6.

"Descarta indultar al ex presidente Pérez." El nuevo día. 26 January 1996. p. 28.

Diccionario de derecho procesal penal y de términos usuales en el proceso penal. 1989. 2 Vols. 2nd ed. Marco Antonio Díaz de León. México: Porrúa.

Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States. 1980. Washington: The Department of State.

"Whodunnit? Will the government's inability, or unwillingness, to solve three murders finally bring the old system down?" Alma Guillermoprieto. The New Yorker. 25 September 1995. pp. 44-53.

"Juez suspende deportación de Ruiz Massieu." 1996. El diario/La prensa. 29 February 1996. p. 8.

Matter of Extradition of Singh. 123 F.R.D. 127 (D.N.J. 1987).

Tratados y convenios sobre extradición y cooperación bilateral en materia penal suscritos entre Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y Los Estados Unidos de América. 1994. México: Procuraduría General de la República.