For the sake of this question, please assume, as is likely, that the following New York Times report is accurate, and their anonymous sources are truthful:
So i would guess the answers is no, as they would have no reason to extradite him:
Spain requested his extradition, but as per a bilateral agreement, Venezuela took over the case as he was a citizen of Venezuelan origin
.
.
but have not yet received a reply. They explained that from the judicial point of view, Spain cannot do anything because the case has been tried and Venezuela is in charge of executing the sentence
The only reason i can think is if some element of the crime was something that could be tried in the US. Did he plan the murders in the US? Get the weapon in the US? I am guessing the answer is no? And even if the answer is yes it would be a difficult case to try. But IANAL.
Of course if i was being cynical I’d say this will be a very useful test case for Trump’s upcoming attempts to deport American citizens to foreign jails
Under most of the treaties, the receiving country will continue the enforcement of the transferred sentence. Such continued enforcement will be executed under the laws, regulations and procedures of the receiving country
I don’t know what the terms of the prisoner transfer were, or what the laws, regulations and procedures of the USA are. Under normal terms, if he is free in the USA, the USA could arrest or detain him at any time, provided that the punishment is not more than the remaining term of his 30 year sentence.
Why would Spain not be able to extradite and prosecute him? Is there something in Spanish law that says “oh, well, he was prosecuted there so we can’t”? I would think double jeopardy would not apply in such a case. After all, if the law allows such a situation, then in that situation any corrupt country can prosecute someone and find them not guilty to evade their extradition and forestall prosecution.
The only other question would be, if Spain requests extradition, can the fellow argue double jeopardy in American courts?
I seriously doubt if the roles were reversed, that the USA would not prosecute someone for killing an American citizen just because they were prosecuted in another country for the crime, unless they were satisfied the sentence was appropriate and carried out.
Thank you. I think that answers my question as far as the possibility of being put in a U.S. prison goes. I now see that the U.S. and Venezuela are treaty partners for this through the Organization of American States. Ortiz’s flag waving on the plane tells me that his repatriation to the U.S. was voluntary, that being one of the requirements for the sentence resuming in the receiving nation prison.
What with Trump being so unpredictable, quick migration to a country lacking such a treaty is now in his self-interest. But pulling that off would take a lot of money.
When it became clear that Venezuela would not extradite to Spain, the Spanish authorities cooperated in the Venezuelan trial. So that could create an issue in terms of his already being tried and sentenced.
A possible, highly literal, answer to your question is that the United States might then seem to be acknowledging an error, and the regime now in power, in the United States, avoids admitting errors.
This triple murder, and the international aftermath, has received a tremendous amount of press coverage in Spain. Politically, they might want to have someone who committed such a horrendous crime, on Spanish soil, in a Spanish prison. But Spanish authorities have reasons to avoid antagonizing a powerful foreign leader threating their economy with rising and often changing, tariff rates. Because of this, the government of Spain probably will not insist on extradition as fervently as they might with a different American president.
So that would take an explicit agreement under a bilateral treaty, where a US citizen commits a crime abroad and the US agrees to let them serve there sentence in the states rather than rot in a jail in third world jail. AFAIK this is not at all what happened here
I’d be very surprised if there was a bilateral treaty of that kind between the US and socialist Venezuela
Though they didn’t just decide to cooperate. When they realized he was not going to be extradited they used the existing bilateral treaty to ensure he was prosecuted, with Spanish help.
I’m a little surprised it was possible for him to be prosecuted in Venezuela for a crime that happened in Spain. I thought these agreements were for letting someone who has been convicted in another country serve their sentence in their home country.
This may be a recent thing for drug smuggling cases. Where the destination country no longer has to track the drugs all the way to their country and then arrest and try everyone involved. Instead they can just give the evidence to the source country and have them prosecute even before the drugs have left the country.
That’s how the prisoner swap was agreed, I think? But was there any bilateral agreement whereby the US prisoners would serve their sentences in the US and the Venezuelan prisoners would serve their sentences in Venezuela? It didn’t seem to be that (but it would not be unlike the Trump administration to just lie about it)
Its another example of Google being awful nowadays, i can’t find any useful details on Google
American law allows the US to prosecute people who kill Americans in Spain. As well as a host of extraterritorial financial crimes, sex crimes, and other stuff. The Venezuelan law is different, but then so is their extradition law.
If he’s a naturalized citizen he could be stripped of his citizenship then deported as an illegal alien.
If the murders occurred before he was naturalized and he didn’t say anything about them during his application for citizenship that might not be difficult.
If they occurred after he was naturalized I’m not sure, probably harder? I don’t know if there’s a precedent for that or not.
So… not a test case of whether or not someone a US citizen by birth can lose their citizenship, which is the case Trump really wants to test.
I would think any country that refuses to extradite its citizens, as Venezuela does, would need to have a process to punish citizens who commit crimes abroad and then run home.
I assume double jeopardy is a tenet of most legal systems today.
The question then becomes the legal status of the case in Spain; as others mentioned. That depends on Spanish law and the extent to which they cooperated with the Venezuelan prosecution, do they still have the right to try him in Spain and thus request his extradition?
As I understand, he came to the USA, joined the armed forces and became naturalized, long before the events in Spain. I’m not sure stripping his citizenship would work. And I assume if they did, they just send him back to Venezuela. Which would make the US gvernment look stupid (insert snide comment) so not likely. Would Venezuela be legally capable of re-incarcerating him then?
[Moderating] @Broomstick had a bit in her post that she realized right after posting was inappropriate for FQ, and edited it out. Right before she did so, another poster quoted it. So as to keep the thread on the rails, I’ve deleted that other post.
Yeah everything I’ve read agrees with that. But what about the agreement the US has with the Organization of American States (through which this swap was organized i think?) does that allow US prisoners to serve there time in the US for crimes committed, and/or prosecuted, in Venezuela?
And even if that is the case can it be done retroactively? Like “our bad, i know we said this guy was a brave political prisoner being rescued from evil communists, but actually we’ve decided what with all the murders and stuff we’d like him to go to prison here”
No. The courts have continually upheld it is not double jeopardy if the courts are different sovereigns which is why you can be charged for the same crime by the Feds and a state (or multiple states) and being found innocent in one still allows you to be found guilty in another.
Technically the answer to your question is yes he can argue it, but he won’t win the argument.
As i said i believe this may have been done via a specific kind of international treaty, between drug producing countries and drug consuming ones. The idea is that when the police in European county discover a conspiracy to import drugs from another country they don’t need to track them all the way to their country (with all the costs and risks that entails), instead they can send all the evidence to the source country and have them arrest* and prosecute the smugglers there, using the evidence provided. Its just in this case it was a murder not drug smuggling
‘*’ - I’m guessing after telling anyone suitably paid up to the policemen’s benevolence fund, that they should maybe get out of town and not hang out with any gringos next Tuesday;
