Santos v. Thomas, No. 12-56506 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe government of Mexico requested extradition certification of Appellant on kidnapping charges. Based on the statements of five witnesses implicating Appellant in the alleged kidnapping for ransom of a mother and her two children, the magistrate judge, serving as the extradition court, found that there was probable cause to believe that Appellant was guilty of the alleged kidnapping and, accordingly, certified extradition. Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, arguing that the extradition court’s probable cause determination was not supported by competent evidence because it failed to consider evidence of torture. The district court denied relief. The Ninth circuit affirmed, holding (1) the magistrate judge properly excluded from its probable cause determination evidence that two witnesses, who had provided key inculpatory statements, later recanted and declared that their statements were obtained by torture; and (2) the district court properly denied Appellant’s habeas petition because the extradition court’s probable cause determination was supported by competent evidence.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Extradition. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief from a magistrate judge’s order certifying Jose Munoz Santos’ extradition to Mexico on kidnapping charges. The panel held that the magistrate judge, serving as the extradition court, properly excluded from its probable cause determination evidence that two witnesses, who had provided key inculpatory statements, later recanted and stated their statements were obtained by torture. The panel explained that in a case like this one, where torture allegations are inextricably intertwined with the witnesses’ recantations, the evidence was properly excluded because its consideration would have required a mini-trial on whether the witnesses’ initial statements were procured by torture. The panel concluded that the district court properly denied the habeas petition because the extradition court’s probable cause determination was supported by competent evidence.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 22, 2015.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 28, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.