The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the defendant Valencia Trujillo was not brought to the United States pursuant to a United States-Colombia extradition treaty, but rather an agreement with the United States. The Court ruled that the defendant did not have standing to claim any violations of the treaty. USA v Valencia-Trujillo, July 8, 2009.The Court also rejected a claim that the defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether false statements had been made in an affidavit in support of the extradition of the defendant to Colombian authorities, relying on USA v Alvarez-Machain.
"The most fundamental reason is that a criminal defendant does not have the right to challenge how he came to be within the jurisdiction of the prosecuting country. In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court held that the United States had jurisdiction to try a Mexican national even though its agents had forcibly abducted him and hauled him to this country without Mexico’s consent, at least where there was no treaty provision specifically prohibiting the abduction. 504 U.S. 655, 669–70, 112 S. Ct. 2188, 2196–97 (1992). It necessarily follows from Alvarez-Machain that the United States does not lose the right to prosecute a foreign citizen it obtains by the lesser misconduct of an agent misrepresenting or omitting material facts in the affidavit used to secure extradition."
