## Facts

- Juan Ramón Matta-Ballesteros participated in a large narcotics trafficking enterprise centered in Guadalajara, Mexico, importing substantial quantities of cocaine and marijuana into the United States.
- After major law-enforcement seizures in 1984, enterprise members discussed retaliating against the responsible DEA agent, later identified as Special Agent Enrique Camarena.
- Camarena and his pilot were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered; the government alleged Matta-Ballesteros assisted the conspiracy through transportation and logistical support.
- U.S. marshals, assisted by Honduran forces, forcibly seized Matta-Ballesteros in Honduras, transported him to a U.S. Air Force base, and brought him to the United States for prosecution.
- Matta-Ballesteros alleged he was beaten and tortured with a stun gun during capture and transport.
- A jury in the Central District of California convicted him of (1) violent crime in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1959), (2) conspiracy to kidnap a federal agent (18 U.S.C. § 1201(c)), and (3) kidnapping a federal agent (18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(5)).
- He appealed, arguing the abduction violated the Honduras–United States extradition treaty and international law, depriving the district court of personal jurisdiction, and also alleging trial errors.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant forcibly abducted from a foreign country allegedly in violation of an extradition treaty and international law.
2. Whether the Honduras–United States extradition treaty created an enforceable individual right barring prosecution or requiring dismissal or other relief based on the method of apprehension.
3. Whether alleged trial errors, including evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, required reversal of the convictions.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The court held the district court had personal jurisdiction over Matta-Ballesteros despite his forcible abduction from Honduras.
- Relying on Ker–Frisbie principles as applied in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, the court rejected the argument that the Honduras–United States extradition treaty barred prosecution absent an express treaty provision prohibiting abduction or prescribing dismissal as a remedy.
- The court rejected international-law and due process arguments as bases to divest jurisdiction in these circumstances.
- The court found no reversible trial error in the challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or other asserted defects.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Ker–Frisbie doctrine, a defendant’s unlawful or forcible apprehension generally does not bar prosecution in a U.S. court that otherwise has jurisdiction.
- An extradition treaty does not create a personal immunity from prosecution based on abduction unless the treaty expressly prohibits that method of rendition or provides dismissal as a remedy.
- Alleged violations of international law or treaty obligations related to transnational apprehension are ordinarily addressed through sovereign-to-sovereign channels rather than by dismissing a criminal case.
- Allegations of mistreatment during apprehension, even if serious, do not automatically deprive a court of jurisdiction under controlling precedent; relief depends on recognized constitutional or procedural grounds and a showing of reversible prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Matta-Ballesteros’s forcible seizure from Honduras did not deprive the district court of personal jurisdiction or require dismissal under the Honduras–United States extradition treaty or international law, and it affirmed his racketeering-related and kidnapping convictions after finding no reversible trial error.


United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995)