Deportations, Expulsions, or other Extraordinary
Fugitives deported to the United States or otherwise returned under
other than a formal order of extradition often claim that they were
United States or foreign agents) and returned illegally. The courts
dispose of those arguments under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, holding
a defendant in a Federal criminal trial may not successfully challenge the
District Court's jurisdiction over his person on the grounds that his
before the Court was unlawfully secured. Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S.
(1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952). See,
United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995);
States v. Mitchell, 957 F.2d 465 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v.
Matta, 937 F.2d 567 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Pelaez,
F.2d 520 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Riviere, 924 F.2d 1289 (3d
1991); United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1988);
States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v.
Winter, 509 F.2d 975 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S.
(1975); United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862, 873 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 444 U.S. 832 (1979). One court found an
to the general doctrine, declaring that a court could refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction if the person's presence had been secured by conduct shocking
conscience of the court. United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267
Cir. 1974). No court has followed Toscanino, however, see
Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 262-263 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 878 (1990); United States v.
744 F.2d 1508, 1530 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S.
(1985); and the Second Circuit itself in a subsequent decision limited the
exception to situations of extreme misconduct. Lujan v. Gengler, 510
62 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1001 (1975).|
[cited in USAM 9-15.610]