CASE BRIEF: United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
Steven Curry
February 23, 2023
Dr. Brake
HLSC 520
Liberty University
CASE BRIEF: United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
Case Brief 2: United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
Facts
On April 2, 1990, a physician and citizen of Mexico named Humberto Alvarez-Machain,
was abducted by the DEA from Guadalajara, Mexico to the United States (Dwyer, 2015, p. 340).
This came after Alvarez was indicted for his involvement in the 1985 kidnapping and murder of
a United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent Enrique Camarena-
Salazar and a Mexican pilot. Alvarez, who was a medical doctor, was believed to have
participated in the murder and torture of Officer Camarena. His actions as a doctor helped
prolong the life of Camarena which enabled cartel members to torture and interrogate him.
Despite the fact that the United States has an extradition treaty with Mexico, Alvarez was
abducted and flown to El Paso, Texas where he was then arrested by the DEA. Alvarez claimed
the extradition treaty was violated when he was abducted and made a motion to have the
indictment dismissed.
Procedural History
The District Court did conclude that the DEA was responsible for the abduction of
Alvarez, although they were not personally involved in it (Dwyer, 2015, p. 340). Alvarez moved
to have the indictment dismissed claiming that his abduction constituted outrageous
governmental conduct. Alvarez also claimed that his abduction was in violation of the extradition
treaty between the United States and Mexico and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try
him. The District Court rejected the outrageous governmental conduct claim but held that it
lacked jurisdiction to try the respondent because his abduction violated the extradition treaty
(Dwyer, 2015, p. 341). The District Court discharged Alvarez and ordered that he be repatriated
CASE BRIEF: United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
back to Mexico. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the indictment and the
repatriation of Alvarez as well as affirmed the district court's finding that the United States had
authorized the abduction of Alvarez.
The Mexican government officially protested the treaty violation in letters to the United
States government. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the decision. The opinion,
United States v. Alvarez-Machain was delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme
Court, which concluded that the abduction of Alvarez was not in violation of the extradition
treaty between the United States and Mexico. Despite the fact that Alvarez was abducted, the
Supreme Court found that this does not prohibit his trial in a court in the United States for
violations of the criminal laws of the United States.
Issues
Article 9 of the extradition treaty outline the specific rules and rights of a country to
choose whether it's nationals would be tried in its own courts or by the courts of the other nation.
The legality of Alvarez's abduction from Mexico was the primary issue in this case. Whether or
not this abduction constituted a treaty violation between the United States and Mexico was also
at issue. Lastly was the question of whether this treaty violation constituted justification to allow
Alvarez to evade due process before the court for the crimes he committed (Dwyer, 2015, p.
341).
Rules
The Supreme Court looked first to United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, which the
court addressed claims of an extradition treaty violation due to a forcible abduction. This
prohibited the prosecution of defendant Rauscher for a crime other than the crime for which he
CASE BRIEF: United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
had been extradited. This led the court to consider the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, 8 Stat.
572, 576. which governed extraditions between England and the United States (Dwyer, 2015, p.
341). This was known as the “doctrine of specialty” and the question was whether this
prohibition was an intended part of the treaty (Rauscher, 119 U.S., at 411). Justice Miller
delivered the opinion of the court (Rauscher, 119 U.S., at 430) and found that a person brought to
the court by means of an extradition treaty could only be tried for one of the offenses described
in that treaty and for the offence which he is charged in the proceedings for his extradition.
In Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886), Justice Miller addressed the issue of defendants
brought before the court by way of a forcible abduction. In this case, Ker was forcibly abducted
from Peru and brought to the United States to stand trial for a larceny charge. In this case, the
court ruled that such forcible abduction is “no such sufficient reason why the party should not
answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such
an offence and presents no valid objection to his trial in court. Ker, supra, at 444” (Dwyer, 2015,
p. 343). In further support of this was ruling was Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, the rule of Ker
was applied in a US domestic case in which the defendant was abducted from Chicago by
officers from Michigan so he could stand trial in Michigan. The court found “No persuasive
reasons are now presented to justify overruling this line of cases” (Dwyer, 2015, p. 342). Most
notably is the court’s opinion that “there is nothing in the constitution that requires a court to
permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial
against his will” (Dwyer, 2015, p. 342).
Application/Analysis
The court applied the law in support of its opinion by reviewing similar cases in which a
defendant was abducted to stand trial. U.S. v. Rauscher, Ker v. Illinois, Frisbie v. Collins shared
CASE BRIEF: United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
defendants that were all forcibly abducted. Cases in which an extradition treaty was in place
between the United States and another country, as well as a case on US soil all were evaluated by
the court. The evaluation of Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 397 (1985) & Valentine v. United
States ex. Rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 11 (1936) were also considered to determine the
applicability of treaty terms. “The treaty says nothing about the obligations of the United States
and Mexico to refrain from forcible abductions of people from the territory of the other nation, or
the consequences under the treaty if such an abduction occurs” (Dwyer, 2015, p. 343).
The noteworthy take away was the court's opinion that article 9 of the extradition treaty
does not purport to specify the only way in which one country may gain custody of a national of
the other country for the purposes of prosecution. The Solicitor General made the following
notation “the Mexican government was made aware comma as early as 1906 comma of the Ker
doctrine comma and the United States position that it applied to forcible abductions made outside
the terms of the United States-Mexico extradition treaty” (Dwyer, 2015, p. 344). The subsequent
1978 version of the treaty does not attempt to establish a rule that would in any way curtail the
effect of Ker.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision and use of case law in the Alvarez-Machain case provides
adequate legal precedence for their ruling in my opinion. While the tactic of using forcible
abductions is certainly not ideal, I believe there are cases such as Alvarez-Machain, where the
practice is justified. Mexico rightly protested the abduction of Alvarez-Machain, but this is a
matter for the executive branch. I agree with the court's assessment that this forcible abduction
does not constitute a violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico.
Treaties do not guarantee the desired result from the country in which extradition is requested
CASE BRIEF: United States V. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
and allow for repatriation absent justice. The heinous nature in which DEA Officer Camarena
was murdered, provides adequate justification for Alvarez’s abduction, regardless of how
shocking the abduction might have been. I fully agree with the opinion that once a defendant
appears before the court, he should be subject to due process in the United States.
