EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Respondent") 1 is accused by Mexico of having been involved with or committing various crimes in violation of . MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING BAIL PENDING EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS. Cruising the freeway between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, like any suburban commuter, Emilio Valdez Mainero seemed an unlikely assassin. View phone numbers, addresses, public records, background check reports and possible arrest records for Emilio Valdez. 3188 for a similar proposition. Emilio Valdez passed away Saturday, August 31, 2019. 1462, 1469 (S.D.Tex.1992). 2d 74 (1960), as the case that establishes the possibility of a "humanitarian exception" based on the "federal court's sense of decency." No mention of torture or physical abuse is made. At the time of the June 30, 1997 hearing, a typed translation of Alejandro's personal notes was offered. Soto also explains the details of the alleged abuse visited upon him. These latter efforts resulted in the formulation of the March 3, 1997 "declaration.". The 33-year-old Mexican . It is asserted that the videotapes demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor and rebut the assertion that Alejandro testified as a result of any torture or duress. The complaint . In the Matter of Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. mayo 9, 2022. Los jvenes que cayeron en las garras de los hermanos Arellano Flix fueron: Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un empresario, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. Emilio Ricardo Valds Mainero, (a) "Len" o "Ricardo Gonzlez Len", detenido el 30 de septiembre de 1996, en San Diego, California, por posesin ilegal de armas y de estupefacientes. El Cocinero confesses about FBI Top Ten Most Wanted's Arellano Felix EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO | DataJuridica.com Valdez then smiled and announced, "The Baby paid me off. B. Gustavo Miranda Santacruz On November 19, 1996, Gustavo Miranda Santacruz (hereinafter "Miranda") made a declaration before Assistant United States Attorney, Gonzalo P. Curiel, acting as Mexico's agent pursuant to a request under the mutual Legal Assistance Treaty that exists between Mexico and the United States. denied, 494 U.S. 1017, 110 S. Ct. 1321, 108 L. Ed. The law limits extradition to circumstances where the Treaty is in full force and effect. (3) Fausto Soto Miller. emilio valdez mainero - polucon.com The statements attributed to Respondent Valdez from the wiretape surveillance,[35] result in a finding that Alejandro's March 3, 1997 declaration and personal notes were contrived and are unreliable. [11] More fully identified as the "Criminal Code in local matters and for all the Republic in federal matters.". 896 (S.D.Cal.1993). [16] Habeas corpus was subsequently granted, Kin-Hong v. United States,957 F. Supp. at 952. 39); and, SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER DIRECTING THE UNITED STATES TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE filed September 12, 1997 (Docket No. 50). No further "recantation" exists, although he does "appeal that accusation" (the charges brought against him are on the basis of the statements). Support for its origin is suggested from a New York Times article[40]. Ultimately, the United States sought to stay the proceedings for an additional ninety (90) day period. The Court is not required to decide guilt or innocence, but only determines whether there is competent legal evidence to justify holding the accused for trial in the charging country. A concern over the authenticity of the evidence offered by way of the Ruiz declaration is also present. Alejandro's statement, at page 13, implicates Respondent[47] in the murder. The physical description of Emilio Valdez Mainero, "El C.P." or "Cabeza de Perro," is the following: 30 years old, 1.77 or 1.76 meters, heavy build, white skin, short straight hair which . [37] These statements were taken in open Court, at the time that Cruz and Soto were arraigned on charges filed against them by the Republic of Mexico and based upon the statements given to the public prosecutor. Martinez told Cruz that he would receive some money if Cruz would hold the 38 Super and the 9mm guns that they had used to kill Gallardo and Sanchez. Specifically, their testimony is summarized as follows: A. Gerardo Cruz Pacheco, aka "Capitan," On October 12, 1996 at 1:00 p.m.,[23] Gerardo Cruz Pacheco, aka "Capitan," (hereinafter "Cruz"), made a signed statement before Alma Leticia Lares Tenorio, an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor. In the supplemental request for extradition filed in January, 1997, the facts supporting the firearms offense were related to the first degree murder of Mr. Gallardo and Mr. Sanchez alleged to have occurred on or about April 9, 1996. Los jvenes que cayeron en las garras de los hermanos Arellano Flix fueron: Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un empresario, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. For the reasons set forth in footnote 32 an extended analysis of the recantation is not set forth, nor is the recantation viewed any differently than those of Cruz and Soto. The United States, in fact, complied with Article 11, Paragraph 3, by its initial filing of diplomatic note 001831, on November 25, 1996 with the U.S. Embassy in Mexico. On October 22, 1997, the Court issued an Order directing the United States Attorney to produce photographic evidence referenced in witness statements and related to the issue of the identity of Respondent. 1462, 1469 (S.D.Tex.1992). The Court is sensitive to the practical and legal limitations on Respondent's ability to challenge the evidence in the extradition proceeding. Mxico, DF - Era el nico de los altos mandos de los Arellano Flix a quien . I Background. The "recantations" from Cruz and Soto are in the form of testimony before a judge of the First District of Federal Criminal Proceedings in the State of Mexico. The cohorts also said the Arellanos had on their payroll Mexican immigration agents who waved cocaine shipments across the border. In Matter of Extradition of Pazienza,619 F. Supp. In fact, the prevailing authorities are clear that: The decision to honor a request for extradition is "political", not "judicial". Soto acknowledges having signed the statement as well as affixing his fingerprints. 40). MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION RE: DETAINEE'S RESPONSE TO EXTRADITION REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR RELEASE, p. 55, lines 17, et seq., Docket No. Magistrate No. The long list of challenges to the probable cause finding in Mexico and the other alleged infirmities are not fully set forth herein as the Court finds the opinions of Attorney Gastelum are irrelevant to these proceedings. The Secretary of State makes the ultimate decision on whether to surrender the Respondent. The case against the juniors spilled into U.S. courts after the Sept. 30 arrest of Emilio Valdez Mainero, 32, the baby-faced son of a deceased Tijuana colonel. 1989), cert. In addition to being signed by extraditee's father, other family members similarly signed attesting to the authenticity and veracity of the document. 1101(d) (3); and Fed. Caso Blancornelas - activoforo.com EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. Citations Copy Citation. Los narcojuniors reales de la serie 'Narcos Mxico 3' 'Narcos: Mxico 3' reparto: Quin es 'Kitty' Pez? Historia - RPP Valdez was a 2016 graduate of Warren Mott High School who had moved to Pontiac. 937 (D.Vt.1991); Jhirad v. Ferrandina, 536 F.2d 478 (2d Cir.1976). Get free summaries of new Southern District of California US Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! The court, for reasons explained below, grants the petition, finding the detainee extraditable. 253 (1910); Rice v. Ames,180 U.S. 371, 21 S. Ct. 406, 45 L. Ed. emilio valdez mainero - reyasroom.com These declarations bear even greater indicia of competency than the police reports accepted as competent evidence in Zanazanian. Seguir Leyendo "Siempre estaba preocupada por el avance de mi divorcio, me la pasaba marcando y visitando a mi abogado. The Court is not limited in its receipt of this evidence by virtue of the lack of certification. 124 F.3d 1186, 1997 WL 624797 (9th Cir.). In fact, it is the United States, on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, that is the moving party in this proceeding, pursuant to the subject Treaty. 830 (1911). The statement is a summary of what Alejandro described to his family and includes information related to meeting General Gutierrez Rebollo as well as contact with DEA and FBI agents who pressured him to sign a confession in exchange for removal from Mexico and protection thereafter. Respondent asserts that Soto lost an eye as a result of the torture used by Mexico to extract his statement[39]. [35] This evidence was received under seal in 96mg1828 and as a result, the specifics are not detailed or recited herein. Garcia-Guillern v. United States, 450 F.2d 1189, 1192 (5th Cir. El recordado criminal perteneca a los Narcojuniors, una clula del crtel de Tijuana que sale a relucir en la nueva temporada de la serie de Netflix. 990 F.Supp. 1208 (S.D.Cal. 1997), 96MG1798, Extradition of Mainero Bingham v. Bradley,241 U.S. 511, 517, 36 S. Ct. 634, 60 L. Ed. The certificate is forwarded to the Department of State. In fact, in the statement to the district judge on October 2, 1996, Mr. Soto indicates that he has no physical defects. Mexican law defines murder (or homicide) as taking the life of another (Article 302). LOS NARCOJUNIORS. No applicable authority was presented on this point and prevailing authority as set forth herein supports this ruling. The evidence tying Valdez to the murder of Gallardo and Sanchez itself, given the numbers of other individuals involved, supports the criminal association charge. Neely v. Henkel,180 U.S. 109, 21 S. Ct. 302, 45 L. Ed. ``But it only makes the laxity which we see daily _ that should be viewed with greater and greater suspicion.. Respondent was afforded due process with a full opportunity to review and respond to the supplemental materials. 54(b) (5). The Ninth Circuit has held that self incriminating statements of accomplices are sufficient to establish probable cause in an extradition hearing. A certified copy of the extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Mexico of May 4, 1978 *1217 (TIAS 9656) was submitted by the United States in support of its position that the Treaty is presently in full force and effect. Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 789, 790 (9th Cir.1986). 3184, Ward v. Rutherford, 921 F.2d 286, 289 (D.C.Cir.1990) and Rule 74 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court of the Southern District of California. 96-1798-M. United States District Court, S.D. In Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 815 (9th Cir.1986), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that hearsay evidence that would be inadmissible for other purposes is admissible in extradition hearings. The certified documents included diplomatic note 001831 dated November 25, 1996 from the Embassy of Mexico formally requesting the extradition of Respondent on the firearms and conspiracy charges. United States District Court, S.D. ("Cruz") In his October 12, 1996 statement, Cruz declared before an agent of the Mexican Federal Public Prosecutor that Valdez, Martinez and, Fabian Partiday, aka "Domingo," described to him crimes that they had committed, the firearms they used to commit the crimes, and the numerous cities in Mexico, in which they had committed crimes in furtherance of the goals of the AFO. This element was not challenged by the Respondent. Matter of Extradition of Mainero :: California Southern District Court Based on the above evidence, this Court finds that there is probable cause to believe that Valdez committed the crime of criminal conspiracy as alleged in the extradition request. The witnesses all identify Respondent as the perpetrator in these regards. Valdezs attorney said some of the statements were extracted under torture. [29] Respondents request for discovery of all evidence of discussions with Alejandro Hodoyan is denied on the basis of the authority set forth in footnote 26, except to the extent that this information was produced in response to the Court's order of September 11, 1997 (see footnote 6). An extradition hearing is not a criminal proceeding and the person whose return is sought is not entitled to the rights available in a criminal trial at common law. While 3188 requires the United States to deliver a person committed for extradition to a foreign government within two months, that provision has no application to the proceedings in this case, at this stage, as commitment does not occur prior to the certification of the Respondent's extraditability by the Court. The holding in Gallina, however, offers no support for Valdez' claim. This issue was not challenged by the Respondent. He goes on to state that he signed it because he was subjected to psychological pressure and that it was a "lie". 956 (1922). Under United States law, a conspiracy is an agreement among two or more persons to commit a crime. 000012 dated January 3, *1213 1997. United States v. Wiebe, 733 F.2d 549, 554 (8th Cir.1984); Bozilov v. Seifert, 983 F.2d 140 (9th Cir.1992). Mr. Valdez became a top operative in the organization, arranging drug . BATTAGLIA, District Judge. De acuerdo con un artculo del periodista Jess Blancornelas, publicado en 2002 . Threats at the time were taken seriously, especially given the high profile murders of Tijuana's police chief in February 2000, followed shortly by the murder of Jose Patio . These individuals left his home the following day for Mexico City in a light grey Spirit automobile. The Extradition Hearing was continued on several occasions after the January 14, 1997 filing, with the consent of the parties, to allow for further preparation and response to the evidence. Mr. Valdez became a top operative in the organization, arranging drug shipments and assassinations, the Mexican and American police have charged in court. Background. The request for discovery regarding Miranda was also submitted in RESPONDENTS SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY filed June 26, 1997 in Case 96-1828 (Docket No. ``Wear black clothes, the man, Gustavo Miranda Santacruz, said he was told by his superior. [1] Valdez was identified or described at various times and by different persons or in documentary evidence with nicknames or aliases. En una de esas fiestas fue que conocieron a Emilio Valdez Mainero, quien era hijo de un coronel que fue . There is no question, and no conflict in the evidence, that Gallardo and Sanchez were shot and killed by two individuals on April 9, 1996, at approximately 9:30 p.m., at the entrance of the restaurant at the Holiday Inn in Toluca, Mexico. Neely v. Henkel,180 U.S. 109, 21 S. Ct. 302, 45 L. Ed. Extradition treaties do not contemplate the introduction of testimony of live witnesses by the Respondent to contradict the demanding country's proof. [33] On June 19, 1997, Respondent filed a REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY requesting, among other things, that the Court "order the government to turn over any other relevant information which might help the detainee explain the `evidence' lodged against him" (Docket No. Appellant then filed a writ of habeas corpus with the district court. Mexico has filed the videotapes, the evidence concerning Respondent's statements regarding the 1997 abduction of Alejandro Hodoyan and the genesis of the March 3, 1997 Declaration by Alejandro Hodoyan, as well as the statements by Alejandro to U.S. agents. Specifically, the Court ordered the United States to file copies of videotapes of Alejandro Hodoyan's deposition; evidence including Respondent's statements regarding the circumstances surrounding the 1997 abduction of Alejandro Hodoyan and the genesis of the March 3, 1997 declaration by Alejandro Hodoyan;[5] and, all statements, recordings, transcriptions and memoranda of interviews by the assistant U.S. Attorney and federal agents of Alejandro Hodoyan. He declared that, in May, 1992, Ramon Arellano-Felix and Valdez killed rival drug traffickers, the Olmos brothers, and that Valdez told him and other members of the AFO that Valdez would pay $150,000 to them if they took the blame for the Olmos murders. "Lobo" Hodoyn obtiene libertad - Semanario ZETA Galanis v. Pallanck, 568 F.2d 234 (2d Cir.1977); Sayne v. Shipley, 418 F.2d 679 (5th Cir.1969) cert. Background. The videotapes clearly demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor. Several days went by before Cruz met with Valdez, Martinez, Contreras and Cabrera. In the Matter of Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. No charges have been filed against Anaya, and he denies the allegations. There is no evidence to suggest that the United States no longer honors the treaty or that its purpose and intent are no longer served. 3184, et seq. Tambin as reclutaron a Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un empresario de Tijuana, quien comenz a pasar droga sin levantar sospechas pues era . 834 F.2d 1444, 1453. Appellant asked the Court of Appeals to stop his extradition because he had been convicted in absentia in Italy and, therefore, would be imprisoned without trial, be unable to confront his accusers and would not be able to conduct a defense. [37] Respondent criticizes Mexico for not filing this set of documents. In re Petition of France for Extradition of Sauvage,819 F. Supp. On the other hand, the formal statements of Soto and Cruz have significant detail concerning the personal background of the witnesses and the specifics of the offenses and related matters. The murder and conspiracy offenses, above described, survive the Respondent's challenge. The admissibility of Miranda's statement, as taken by Assistant United States Attorney Curiel, was previously discussed. When the two cars arrived at the Holiday Inn in Toluca, Valdez got out of the white Volkswagen and told Contreras, "Be, cautious, wait for me here and when you see us going out from the parking lot in the white Volkswagen, you should form a `wall' so that we cannot be followed.". There is no prohibition against hearsay in the extradition context because the Federal Rules of Evidence, which proscribe hearsay, do not apply to extradition. See Reply to Extraditees Response to Extradition Request and Request for Release, Page 8, lines 1-5, inclusive (Docket No. He referred to Ibarras murder and seven other major assassinations in the past 15 months that remain unsolved. 1978). Mexico Wins Extradition of Two Defendants From U.S. for Drug-Killing Cruz testified based upon his personal acquaintance with the individuals named in the statement, and his participation in various events and circumstances, as well as conversations, with the individuals involved.