Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cr-00807_de40> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cr-00807_de40 RegisterActionDate "2020-06-17" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cr-00807_de40 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox as to 280430D: This matter comes before the Court on 280430D Objections to the government's proposed dismissal order. Two of these objections are easily resolved. First, 280430D requests that bond in this case be released and discharged. 280430D did not post any cash or property to secure his release. The dismissal of the case, therefore, will discharge his obligation to appear further as required by his "own recognizance" bond. Second, 280430D requests that the government return property taken at the time of his arrest. The government represents that all of the personal property taken from 280430D was mailed to his girlfriend in January. 280430D has identified what property he believes was not returned and therefore, the Court denies this request as moot. The final objection is more substantive and concerns whether the extradition request that led to these proceedings should be dismissed with or without prejudice. 280430D correctly notes that Turkey has withdrawn its request to extradite under the applicable treaty and, of course, any new request would require a new proceeding. However, this does not mean that the dismissal here should be with prejudice. 280430D cites no reason why Turkey should be prevented from making another new diplomatic request to the United States to extradite defendant. This seems unlikely, but it is possible. Given this reality, it seems almost inconsequential how the Court dismisses the case here. Even if the dismissal was with prejudice as 280430D urges, that dismissal would not act as a bar on any future extradition proceedings. As the government states, the concept of double jeopardy is inapplicable to extradition matters which are not criminal proceedings. In re Rodriguez Ortiz, 444 F. Supp. 2d 876, 885 (N.D. Ill. 2006); DeSilva v. DiLeopnardi, 181 F.3d 865, 868 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that extradition is not a criminal proceeding and that successive efforts to extradite a person do not constitute double jeopardy). However, this proceeding is decidedly closed so the Court dismisses it with prejudice. Mailed notice (np, ) (Entered: 06/17/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cr-00807_de40 AdministrativeID "39" @default.