USA v. Andres Felipe Arias Leiva

Filing 107

ORDER granting 99 Motion to Quash; denying 105 Motion for Hearing; denying 105 Motion to Continue. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 9/25/2017. (mkr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 16-23468-CV-O'SULLIVAN

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION
OF ANDRES FELIPE ARIAS LEIVA

ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court on the United States' Motion to Quash
Subpoenas Issued to Officials of the U.S. Department of State (DE# 99, 9/14/17). The
government seeks to quash subpoenas issued to three employees of the U.S. Embassy in
Bogota, Colombia (Drew Blakeney, Silvana Del Valle Rodriguez and Federico Salcedo) and
Tom Heinemann, Assistant Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence in the
Office of the Legal Adviser, in Washington, D.C. Dr. Arias Leiva notes that explanatory
evidence is permissible in extradition proceedings. See Andres Arias Leiva's Response to
Colombia's Motion to Quash Subpoenas (DE# 103 at 1, 9/22/17).
"[l]t is well-established that 'extradition proceedings are not to be converted into a
dress rehearsal trial."' Polo v. Horgan, 828 F. Supp. 961, 966 n.6 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (quoting
Koskotas v. Roche, 931 F.2d 169 (1st Cir. 1991)). "Although there is no explicit statutory
basis for ordering discovery in extradition proceedings, the extradition court has the inherent
power to order such discovery procedures as law and justice require." In re Mazur, No. 06 M
295, 2007 WL 839982, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2007) (quoting Oen Yin-Choy v. Robinson,
858 F.2d 1400, 1407 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 817 n. 41 (9th
Cir. 1986))).
Here, Dr. Arias Leiva has failed to show the relevance of the documents and

testimony he seeks. 1 Dr. Arias Leiva argues that the three embassy employees are being
subpoenaed because they "were personally involved in helping Dr. [Arias Leiva] flee
Colombia to seek asylum in the United States" and therefore their testimony "will show that
these State Department officials knew that Dr. [Arias Leiva's] trial was not fair or neutral." kl
at 2, 12. The presence of these three embassy employees at the extradition hearing is
unnecessary to establish the fact that they knew Dr. Arias Leiva was in trial when they
assisted Dr. Arias Leiva and his family in traveling to the United States. Moreover, the
personal beliefs of U.S. embassy employees concerning Dr. Arias Leiva's innocence or guilt
have no bearing on the Court's determination on whether there is sufficient evidence to
support a finding of probable cause as to each charge for which extradition is sought.
In a similar case, the court denied a motion for the issuance of a subpoena to a
State Department official to provide "testi[mony] about how [the relator]'s case was handled
internally .... " In re Mazur, 2007 WL 839982, at *8. In that case, counsel for the relater
represented to the court that "the United States government initially refused to grant the
extradition request because the [requesting government] had no case against [the relater],
and [counsel] want[ed] to know the basis of that initial refusal." kl at *6. The court found
that the information sought was not relevant to the extradition proceedings:
With regard to the State Department official and the testimony about how the
State Department arrived at the conclusion that the extradition should be
pursued, the Court does not see how such evidence is relevant to the limited
issues before it. The fact is, the State Department did decide to grant [the
requesting nation]'s request; that officials there may have hesitated or that
they may initially have thought the case against [the relater] weak, simply
does nothing to explain the evidence ultimately presented in the extradition
complaint.

kl at 8.

Similarly here, any evidence concerning the beliefs of certain U.S. embassy

employees concerning Dr. Arias Leiva's criminal trial is not relevant to the instant

1

For purposes of this Order, the Court will assume, without finding, that the
subpoenas were properly issued in this matter.

2

proceedings.
Dr. Arias Leiva further argues that it is necessary to subpoena Mr. Heinemann
because Mr. Heinemann has submitted declarations to this Court which "are internally
contradictory, and his testimony is necessary to clarify what exactly those declarations
mean and what weight this Court should accord them." Andres Arias Leiva's Response to
Colombia's Motion to Quash Subpoenas (DE# 103 at 7, 9/22/17). According to Dr. Arias
Leiva, "[t]he testimony of Mr. Heinemann is necessary to clarify conflicts in the record
regarding this Court's jurisdiction." lQ... at 12. However, the Court has already ruled that it
has jurisdiction over the instant proceedings finding that "the record evidence establishes
that it is the official position of the executive branches of the United States and Colombia
that the Extradition Treaty remains in full force and effect." Order (DE# 59 at 11, 2/6/17).
The Court will persist in this ruling.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the United States' Motion to Quash Subpoenas
Issued to Officials of the U.S. Department of State (DE# 99, 9/14/17) is GRANTED. The
subpoenas issued to Drew Blakeney, Silvana Del Valle Rodriguez, Federico Salcedo and
Tom Heinemann are hereby QUASHED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Hearing on Motion to Quash
Subpoenas and to Continue Extradition Hearing (DE# 105 9/22/17) is~NIED.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami
September, 2017.

JOHN
UNITE
Copies provided to:
All counsel of record

3

lorida this

J

day of