## Facts

- A federal grand jury in Miami returned a multi-count indictment charging Manuel Antonio Noriega with participating in an international cocaine trafficking and money-laundering conspiracy, including RICO and narcotics offenses.
- The prosecution alleged Noriega used official positions in Panama to take payments from drug traffickers, protect cocaine shipments and facilities, and facilitate movement of narcotics proceeds into Panamanian banks.
- After a U.S. military intervention in Panama, Noriega surrendered to U.S. forces, was transported to the United States, and prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida.
- Before trial, Noriega moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and asserted head-of-state immunity, diplomatic immunity, protections based on claimed prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions, and limits on extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal law.
- The district court denied dismissal and later convicted Noriega on multiple counts after trial.
- At trial, Noriega sought to introduce extensive evidence about a covert intelligence relationship with U.S. agencies to explain alleged “unexplained wealth”; the court allowed limited payment-related proof but excluded broader narrative evidence as irrelevant or unduly confusing.
- On appeal, Noriega challenged the denial of immunity and jurisdictional motions, key evidentiary rulings, and denial of a new trial based on alleged suppressed evidence and alleged bribery affecting a government witness.

## Issues

1. Whether Noriega was entitled to head-of-state immunity (or related sovereign/diplomatic immunity) in a U.S. criminal prosecution.
2. Whether the manner of Noriega’s capture and removal to the United States required dismissal or defeated personal jurisdiction.
3. Whether U.S. criminal statutes could be applied to alleged conduct occurring largely outside U.S. territory when the scheme allegedly facilitated cocaine importation into the United States and movement of U.S. drug proceeds abroad.
4. Whether claimed prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions barred prosecution for pre-capture narcotics offenses.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting evidence of Noriega’s intelligence relationship and by denying a new trial based on alleged suppressed evidence and alleged witness bribery.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Noriega’s convictions and affirmed denial of a new trial.
- The court held Noriega was not entitled to head-of-state immunity, emphasizing judicial reliance on the Executive Branch’s recognition and position regarding immunity.
- The court rejected dismissal based on the manner of apprehension and transfer to the United States, applying the Ker–Frisbie rule and treating challenges tied to the military intervention as nonjusticiable political questions.
- The court upheld evidentiary limits on intelligence-relationship proof, concluding broad narrative evidence could be excluded under Rules 401 and 403 while allowing narrower payment-related evidence sufficient for the defense theory.
- The court affirmed denial of a new trial, finding the proffered “newly discovered” information was not shown to be materially exculpatory or likely to change the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Head-of-state immunity in U.S. courts turns substantially on Executive Branch recognition and the Executive’s expressed or implied position; absent recognition or a suggestion of immunity, courts may deny immunity.
- A defendant’s presence before a federal court generally is not invalidated by alleged illegality in the means of capture or transfer to the forum (Ker–Frisbie), and courts will not adjudicate core foreign policy or military judgments as a basis for dismissal.
- U.S. narcotics and related statutes may reach conduct abroad when the charged scheme has a sufficient U.S. nexus, including facilitation of drug importation into the United States and laundering or transfer of U.S.-derived narcotics proceeds.
- Claimed prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions does not itself bar prosecution in civilian court for pre-capture, non-belligerency crimes such as drug trafficking; treaty-based protections principally concern treatment and detention conditions.
- Trial courts have broad discretion under Rules 401 and 403 to limit marginally probative evidence that risks jury confusion; Rule 33 and Brady-based new-trial requests require a showing of materiality and a probability that the result would differ.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld Noriega’s convictions by treating head-of-state immunity as dependent on Executive recognition and opposition to immunity, refusing to let the capture and transfer defeat jurisdiction, sustaining limits on intelligence-relationship evidence as a permissible trial-management judgment, and rejecting new-trial claims for lack of material, outcome-changing proof.


United States v. Noriega, 117 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 1997)