In the Matter of Jan Alf Assarsson, Relator-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he narrow scope of review is based on respect for the sovereignty of other nations. While our courts should guarantee that all persons on our soil receive due process under our laws, that power does not extend to overseeing the criminal justice system of other countries. This respect is embodied in the procedural framework of international extradition, which “gives to the demanding country advantages most uncommon to ordinary civil and criminal litigation.” First National City Bank of New York v. Aristeguieta, 287 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1960).... We often have difficulty discerning the laws of neighboring States, which operate under the same legal system as we do; the chance of error is much greater when we try to construe the law of a country whose legal system is much different from our own. The possibility of error warns us to be even more cautious of expanding judicial power over extradition matters.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aguasvivas v. Pompeo · 643 F. Supp. 2d 535 - In Re the Extradition of Skaftouros

2. “The Secretary has the authority to review the judicial officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law de novo, and to reverse 2 The statute is not perfectly clear on the magistrate's obligation to review whether the documents submitted by the requesting party fulfill the obligations of the pertinent treaty. The language of the statute simply requires that the magistrate certify the extradition "[i]f . . . he deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the property treaty or convention.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aguasvivas v. Pompeo · In the Matter of Jan Alf Assarsson, Relator-Appellant

3. “[Habeas corpus] is not a means for rehearing what the magistrate already has decided. The alleged fugitive from justice has had his hearing and habeas corpus is available only to inquire whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offence [sic] charged is within the treaty and, by a somewhat liberal extension, whether there was any evidence ■warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In the Matter of Extradition of John Edward Burt to the Federal Republic of Germany · 700 F. Supp. 1470 - Esposito v. Adams