Matter of Extradition of Sutton

898 F. Supp. 691, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14265, 1995 WL 574288
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri
DecidedSeptember 14, 1995
Docket95-0080 M
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 898 F. Supp. 691 (Matter of Extradition of Sutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Extradition of Sutton, 898 F. Supp. 691, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14265, 1995 WL 574288 (E.D. Mo. 1995).

Opinion

898 F.Supp. 691 (1995)

In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Gregory J. SUTTON.

No. 95-0080 M.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

September 14, 1995.

*692 David Rosen, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiff.

Arthur Margulis, St. Louis, MO, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NOCE, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Gregory J. Sutton for bail and the government's opposition to bail. A hearing was held on August 17, 1995.

On August 14, 1995, the United States, acting on behalf of the government of Australia, filed a Complaint for Provisional Arrest With a View Towards Extradition and a Complaint, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184, seeking a warrant for the arrest of Gregory J. Sutton. The complaints allege that, pursuant to a treaty between the United States and Australia, the government of Australia has formally requested the extradition of *693 Sutton. The complaint alleges that Sutton has been charged in Australia with twenty-four counts of sexual offenses against persons under sixteen years of age, in violation of the Crimes Act of Australia, committed within the jurisdiction of Australia between 1985 and 1987.

The complaints allege that warrants for Sutton's arrest were issued on September 16, 1992, and January 28, 1993, by a Justice of the Peace, in the Lismore Local Court, at New South Wales, Australia.

On August 15, 1995, defendant Sutton was arrested in this district without incident and appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for an initial appearance. On August 17, 1995, a hearing was held on the issue of detention.

At the detention hearing, the undersigned set a hearing for August 28, 1995, on the issue of whether Sutton should be extradited. On August 22, 1995, the government moved for a continuance of the extradition hearing. On August 24, 1995, without objection from Sutton, the undersigned reset the hearing to September 18, 1995. The purpose for the continuance, according to the United States, is for further investigation and the consideration of additional charges against Sutton in Australia. The government of Australia has since advised the United States that additional charges are being brought against Sutton. See Letter from Malcolm Bennett, Senior Government Lawyer, International Branch (attached to Government's Answer to Respondent's Motion for Bail, filed September 1, 1995.)

On September 12, 1995, the extradition hearing was continued to September 21, 1995, at the request of the defendant.

From the record of these proceedings, including the documents submitted to the court and the pretrial services report, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact:

FACTS

1. Gregory J. Sutton was born in Wyong, New South Wales, Australia, where his parents and brother reside. Sutton is 44 years old.

2. At the time of the offenses alleged against him, Sutton had become a teaching Brother in a Catholic religious Order. In July 1987, at the request of the Order, Sutton participated in a mental health assessment.

3. Sutton left Australia on August 18, 1989, and entered the United States traveling on an Australia passport. He lived in Canada, from November 1989 to June 1990, while he received inpatient treatment for sexual addictions. Upon his discharge from this treatment, he was placed in an aftercare program. Sutton lived in the Chicago area from July 1990 to May 1992. While in Chicago, he received counseling from a private psychiatrist and a spiritual director. He received a master's degree in 1992.

4. Thereafter, in 1992, Sutton moved to St. Louis, Missouri. On October 3, 1992, he married a resident of St. Louis County, whom he had known for five and one-half years. Sutton is a permanent resident alien of the United States. He and his wife have no children. Sutton has been employed in the St. Louis area since April 1993. Defendant and his wife reside in St. Louis County, in a home in which they have substantial equity.

5. Sutton was arrested without incident at his home on August 15, 1995. He has no prior arrests, convictions or any pending cases or outstanding warrants.

DISCUSSION

The United States, on behalf of the government of Australia, seeks the detention of Sutton, pending the extradition hearing and thereafter, if the Court concludes that Sutton is extraditable. Sutton has moved for bail, and provided affidavits in support of his motion.

The federal statute that governs the extradition of an individual from the United States to a foreign country, 18 U.S.C. § 3184, does not provide for bail.[1] The United *694 States Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq., does not apply to international extradition cases; it only applies to persons accused of committing offenses against the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141(a), 3142, 3156(a)(2); United States v. Hills, 765 F.Supp. 381, 384 n. 5 (E.D.Mich.1991). Therefore, the Court must look to federal common law regarding extradition proceedings.

There is a strong presumption against bail in international extradition proceedings. Salerno v. United States, 878 F.2d 317, 317 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Leitner, 784 F.2d 159, 160 (2d Cir.1986) (per curiam). The reason for this presumption was stated by the United States Supreme Court in Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40, 23 S.Ct. 781, 47 L.Ed. 948 (1903):

The demanding government, when it has done all that the treaty and the law require it to do, is entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of the proper warrant, and the other government is under obligation to make the surrender; an obligation which it might be impossible to fulfill if release on bail were permitted. The enforcement of the bond, if forfeited, would hardly meet the international demand; and the regaining of the custody of the accused obviously would be surrounded with serious embarrassment.

Id. at 62. In Wright, the Supreme Court stated that it was unwilling to hold that federal courts do not have the authority to release extraditees on bail other than as specifically authorized by statute, but stated that "bail should not ordinarily be granted in cases of foreign extradition...." Id. at 63.

Federal courts have held that release on bail should not be granted except under special circumstances. See, e.g., Wright, 190 U.S. at 63, 23 S.Ct. at 787; Koskotas v. Roche, 931 F.2d 169, 175 (1st Cir.1991); Salerno, 878 F.2d at 317; In re Extradition of Russell, 805 F.2d 1215, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Leitner, 784 F.2d at 160;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Extradition of Berrocal
263 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (S.D. Florida, 2017)
In re the Extradition of Antonowicz
244 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (C.D. California, 2017)
In re the Extradition of Atias to Israel
916 F. Supp. 2d 915 (E.D. Missouri, 2012)
In Re the Extradition of Garcia
761 F. Supp. 2d 468 (S.D. Texas, 2010)
In Re the Extradition of Beresford-Redman
753 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (C.D. California, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
898 F. Supp. 691, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14265, 1995 WL 574288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-extradition-of-sutton-moed-1995.