- Shuffle
Toggle OnToggle Off
- Alphabetize
Toggle OnToggle Off
- Front First
Toggle OnToggle Off
- Both Sides
Toggle OnToggle Off
Front
How to study your flashcards.
Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key
Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key
H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key
PLAY BUTTON
PLAY BUTTON
99 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What was the holding in Roper v. Simmons
|
Juvenile death penalty case preemptively unconstitutional under 8th amendment cruel and unusually punishment
|
|
What is a crime of international concern under treaty law (suppression convention)?
|
When a country is mandated to establish jurisdiction if they decide not to prosecute then they should extradite. Aut dedere aut prosequi – you judge or extradite
|
|
What obligations does a suppression convention usually contain?
|
Imposes an obligation on states to prosecute and punish those who commit offenses of international concern.
|
|
What is universal jurisdiction
|
Crimes in which the jurisdiction is established on the heinous nature of the crime to establish jurisdiction
|
|
Is universal jurisdiction in absentia accepted under international law?
|
According to the majority/plurality opinion in the arrest warrant case then the answer is no.
|
|
What was the gist of the joint separate opinion of Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal in the Arrest Warrant Case?
|
Although there are international treaties where a pure universal jur is provided for, the absence of examples of enabling national law meant that international law is neutral on the existence of the purest form universal jur, or at best that it is a developing principle rather than a developed one.
|
|
what was the gist of President Guillaume’s opinion in the Arrest Warrant Case?
|
Accepted it only in terms of piracy
|
|
What is the difference between jurisdiction to prescribe and jurisdiction to enforce
|
No clue
|
|
What is the main holding of the Lotus Case and what is its important dictum?
|
a. The main holding is the states cannot exercise power for its enforcements in another state except with their permission
b. Dictum: the possibility of exercising limited territorial jurisdiction- counties can legislate within its borders without limitation. |
|
What is the “Doctrine of Specialty” in extradition cases?
|
Prohibits the requesting nation from prosecuting the extradited individual for any offense other than that for which the surrendering state agreed to extradite. However, since the doctrine is based on comity, its protection exists only to the extent that the surrendering country wishes. Therefore, the extradited party may be tried for a crime other than that for which he was surrendered if the asylum country consents
|
|
What is the principle of dual criminality in extradition cases?
|
As a general rule, an extraditable offense must be a serious crime punishable under the criminal laws of both the surrendering and requesting state
|
|
Enumerate and give a very short definition of the various heads or categories of jurisdiction under customary international law.
|
Jon's gay
|
|
What state determines when a crime is within the provisions of an extradition treaty? Explain the process.
|
The requested state. The requested state must determine whether the conditions of extraditions have been met
|
|
What are the arguments for or against the extradition of nationals?
|
a. Against – revolves around the idea that extradition of countries own national would violate sovereignty
b. For – creates an unfair immunity in favor dangerous criminals. |
|
Does a Pinkerton instruction that permits a conviction of a substantive offense that is in furtherance of the conspiracy violate the rule of specialty?
|
No, bc the scope of liability can be different in the laws of the extraditing and the requesting country.
|
|
What is the probable cause standard applicable in extradition proceedings?
|
is identical to the standard used by courts in federal proceedings which is evidence sufficient to cause a reasonable belief of the accused guilt – not necessary beyond a reasonable doubt
|
|
Describe the two step procedure which divides responsibility for extradition between the judicial officer and the secretary of state.
|
a. Judicial determination of extraditability
b. The secretary has sole discretion to not to extradite - valentine |
|
What is the rule of non inquiry
|
The courts cannot asses the fairness of the judicial system of the requesting nation except when clear knowledge that the person is going to be tortured
|
|
How was the statute of limitation issue decided in Ross v. US Marshal for the Eastern District of Oklahoma?
|
The court said that the state of limitations was not time barred bc the defendant was fleeing from justice which means he has the intend to avoid arrest and/or prosecution
|
|
What are the main tests to determine whether the political exception applies?
|
a. French
b. Swiss c. Anglo – American |
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
Why did the court in Quinn v. Robinson decide that the incident test excluded acts of international terrorism
|
They do not involve an uprising to the struggle nor does the uprising meet the geographical requirements
|
|
Why was the extradition denied in US v. Pitawanakwak?
|
Bc the Quinn’s standard was met. There was an uprising and the acts were committed incident to that uprising.
|
|
When does the United States have extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct?
|
a. First, if the federal statute would allow the exercise of extraterritoriality- formed directly or can be inferred legislative intent giving the mature of the crime, not logically dependent on the location.
b. Second, if international law would allow an exercise of extradition – does not contradict principles of international law |
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
What was the basic reason(s) for the decision in US v. Layton?
|
Killing a member of congress is injurious to the governmental interest wherever it happens
|
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
Under what principles did the Ninth Circuit exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Chua Han Mow v. US case
|
Objective territoriality and protective principle
|
|
US v. Ricardo, how were the jurisdictional requisites satisfied given that the statute did not require the proof of an overt act?
|
It is reasonable to presume intent to cause an effect in the US and thus gain jurisdiction based on the objective territorial principle
|
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
Why did the court in Quinn v. Robinson decide that the incident test excluded acts of international terrorism
|
They do not involve an uprising to the struggle nor does the uprising meet the geographical requirements
|
|
Why was the extradition denied in US v. Pitawanakwak?
|
Bc the Quinn’s standard was met. There was an uprising and the acts were committed incident to that uprising.
|
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
Why did the court in Quinn v. Robinson decide that the incident test excluded acts of international terrorism
|
They do not involve an uprising to the struggle nor does the uprising meet the geographical requirements
|
|
When does the United States have extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct?
|
a. First, if the federal statute would allow the exercise of extraterritoriality- formed directly or can be inferred legislative intent giving the mature of the crime, not logically dependent on the location.
b. Second, if international law would allow an exercise of extradition – does not contradict principles of international law |
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
Why was the extradition denied in US v. Pitawanakwak?
|
Bc the Quinn’s standard was met. There was an uprising and the acts were committed incident to that uprising.
|
|
What was the basic reason(s) for the decision in US v. Layton?
|
Killing a member of congress is injurious to the governmental interest wherever it happens
|
|
When does the United States have extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct?
|
a. First, if the federal statute would allow the exercise of extraterritoriality- formed directly or can be inferred legislative intent giving the mature of the crime, not logically dependent on the location.
b. Second, if international law would allow an exercise of extradition – does not contradict principles of international law |
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
What was the basic reason(s) for the decision in US v. Layton?
|
Killing a member of congress is injurious to the governmental interest wherever it happens
|
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
Under what principles did the Ninth Circuit exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Chua Han Mow v. US case
|
Objective territoriality and protective principle
|
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
US v. Ricardo, how were the jurisdictional requisites satisfied given that the statute did not require the proof of an overt act?
|
It is reasonable to presume intent to cause an effect in the US and thus gain jurisdiction based on the objective territorial principle
|
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
Under what principles did the Ninth Circuit exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Chua Han Mow v. US case
|
Objective territoriality and protective principle
|
|
US v. Ricardo, how were the jurisdictional requisites satisfied given that the statute did not require the proof of an overt act?
|
It is reasonable to presume intent to cause an effect in the US and thus gain jurisdiction based on the objective territorial principle
|
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
Why did the court in Quinn v. Robinson decide that the incident test excluded acts of international terrorism
|
They do not involve an uprising to the struggle nor does the uprising meet the geographical requirements
|
|
Why was the extradition denied in US v. Pitawanakwak?
|
Bc the Quinn’s standard was met. There was an uprising and the acts were committed incident to that uprising.
|
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
When does the United States have extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct?
|
a. First, if the federal statute would allow the exercise of extraterritoriality- formed directly or can be inferred legislative intent giving the mature of the crime, not logically dependent on the location.
b. Second, if international law would allow an exercise of extradition – does not contradict principles of international law |
|
Why did the court in Quinn v. Robinson decide that the incident test excluded acts of international terrorism
|
They do not involve an uprising to the struggle nor does the uprising meet the geographical requirements
|
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
US v. Ricardo, how were the jurisdictional requisites satisfied given that the statute did not require the proof of an overt act?
|
It is reasonable to presume intent to cause an effect in the US and thus gain jurisdiction based on the objective territorial principle
|
|
Why was the extradition denied in US v. Pitawanakwak?
|
Bc the Quinn’s standard was met. There was an uprising and the acts were committed incident to that uprising.
|
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
How was the statute of limitation issue decided in Ross v. US Marshal for the Eastern District of Oklahoma?
|
The court said that the state of limitations was not time barred bc the defendant was fleeing from justice which means he has the intend to avoid arrest and/or prosecution
|
|
What was the basic reason(s) for the decision in US v. Layton?
|
Killing a member of congress is injurious to the governmental interest wherever it happens
|
|
US v. Ricardo, how were the jurisdictional requisites satisfied given that the statute did not require the proof of an overt act?
|
It is reasonable to presume intent to cause an effect in the US and thus gain jurisdiction based on the objective territorial principle
|
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
Why did the court in Quinn v. Robinson decide that the incident test excluded acts of international terrorism
|
They do not involve an uprising to the struggle nor does the uprising meet the geographical requirements
|
|
Under what principles did the Ninth Circuit exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Chua Han Mow v. US case
|
Objective territoriality and protective principle
|
|
What are the main tests to determine whether the political exception applies?
|
a. French
b. Swiss c. Anglo – American |
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
US v. Ricardo, how were the jurisdictional requisites satisfied given that the statute did not require the proof of an overt act?
|
It is reasonable to presume intent to cause an effect in the US and thus gain jurisdiction based on the objective territorial principle
|
|
When did the United States Supreme Court address the political offense exception for the first time?
|
Ornelas v. Ruiz US allowed extradition from Mexico bc they were unrelated to political uprising and there was no political exception
|
|
When does the United States have extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct?
|
a. First, if the federal statute would allow the exercise of extraterritoriality- formed directly or can be inferred legislative intent giving the mature of the crime, not logically dependent on the location.
b. Second, if international law would allow an exercise of extradition – does not contradict principles of international law |
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
Why was the extradition denied in US v. Pitawanakwak?
|
Bc the Quinn’s standard was met. There was an uprising and the acts were committed incident to that uprising.
|
|
What is the principle of dual criminality in extradition cases?
|
As a general rule, an extraditable offense must be a serious crime punishable under the criminal laws of both the surrendering and requesting state
|
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
When does the United States have extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct?
|
a. First, if the federal statute would allow the exercise of extraterritoriality- formed directly or can be inferred legislative intent giving the mature of the crime, not logically dependent on the location.
b. Second, if international law would allow an exercise of extradition – does not contradict principles of international law |
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
What was the basic reason(s) for the decision in US v. Layton?
|
Killing a member of congress is injurious to the governmental interest wherever it happens
|
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
Does a Pinkerton instruction that permits a conviction of a substantive offense that is in furtherance of the conspiracy violate the rule of specialty?
|
No, bc the scope of liability can be different in the laws of the extraditing and the requesting country.
|
|
When does the United States have extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute criminal conduct?
|
a. First, if the federal statute would allow the exercise of extraterritoriality- formed directly or can be inferred legislative intent giving the mature of the crime, not logically dependent on the location.
b. Second, if international law would allow an exercise of extradition – does not contradict principles of international law |
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
What is the famous dictum by Justice Marshall in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy
|
If there is more than one interpretation of the statute they must chose the interpretation that does not offend international law
|
|
Under what principles did the Ninth Circuit exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Chua Han Mow v. US case
|
Objective territoriality and protective principle
|
|
What was the basic reason(s) for the decision in US v. Layton?
|
Killing a member of congress is injurious to the governmental interest wherever it happens
|
|
What is the probable cause standard applicable in extradition proceedings?
|
is identical to the standard used by courts in federal proceedings which is evidence sufficient to cause a reasonable belief of the accused guilt – not necessary beyond a reasonable doubt
|
|
Under what principles did the Ninth Circuit exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Chua Han Mow v. US case
|
Objective territoriality and protective principle
|
|
US v. Ricardo, how were the jurisdictional requisites satisfied given that the statute did not require the proof of an overt act?
|
It is reasonable to presume intent to cause an effect in the US and thus gain jurisdiction based on the objective territorial principle
|
|
Describe the two step procedure which divides responsibility for extradition between the judicial officer and the secretary of state.
|
a. Judicial determination of extraditability
b. The secretary has sole discretion to not to extradite - valentine |
|
What was the basic reason(s) for the decision in US v. Layton?
|
Killing a member of congress is injurious to the governmental interest wherever it happens
|
|
What did Article 3 of the Tokyo convention provide
|
i. The state of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jur over offenses and acts committed on board
ii. Each contracting state shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jur as the State of registration over offences committed on board aircraft registered in such State iii. This convention does not exclude any criminal jur exercised in accordance with national law |
|
What is the rule of non inquiry
|
The courts cannot asses the fairness of the judicial system of the requesting nation except when clear knowledge that the person is going to be tortured
|
|
What where the United States’ arguments to exercise landing jurisdiction in the Georgescu case?
|
a. The pilot can radio ahead for assistance
b. The witnesses will be immediately available c. Marshalls can be on hand to arrest i. If not the person would be able to go free. |
|
Under what principles did the Ninth Circuit exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Chua Han Mow v. US case
|
Objective territoriality and protective principle
|
