## Facts

- David Najohn was indicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for interstate transportation of stolen property under 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
- The United States sought extradition from Switzerland; Swiss authorities extradited Najohn to face the Pennsylvania charges.
- Najohn pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania and received a four-year sentence.
- While he was serving that sentence, a grand jury in the Northern District of California indicted him for interstate transportation of stolen property (18 U.S.C. § 2314), receipt of stolen property (18 U.S.C. § 2315), and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371).
- Najohn moved to dismiss the California indictment, arguing the extradition treaty and the Swiss extradition order limited prosecution to the Pennsylvania offenses under the doctrine of specialty.
- The district court denied dismissal, finding Switzerland had waived the asserted specialty limitation based on a communication transmitted through the Swiss Embassy.
- Najohn entered a conditional guilty plea in the California case, preserving his right to appeal the specialty issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the California prosecution for offenses not specified in the Swiss extradition order violated the doctrine of specialty under the U.S.–Switzerland extradition treaty.
2. Whether Switzerland validly waived any specialty limitation so as to permit prosecution on the Northern District of California charges.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit exercised final-judgment jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 following the conditional guilty plea.
- The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and upheld the conviction.
- The court held that the California prosecution did not violate the doctrine of specialty because Switzerland waived specialty in this case.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of specialty is a rule of international comity intended to ensure the requesting state honors the conditions under which extradition was granted.
- Specialty generally bars prosecution for offenses other than those for which extradition was granted, because the relevant commitments run to the surrendering state.
- Specialty is not treated as a domestic jurisdictional defect; it operates as a treaty- and comity-based constraint tied to the surrendering state’s consent.
- The surrendering state may waive specialty, including after extradition, and such consent may be conveyed through diplomatic communications.
- When the surrendering state waives specialty, prosecution for additional offenses does not violate the treaty-based specialty limitation.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that specialty did not bar Najohn’s California prosecution because Switzerland, the surrendering state, provided diplomatic consent waiving any specialty restriction that would have limited prosecution to the Pennsylvania charges.


United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1986)