In re Benjamin

566 F.Supp.3d 1324

In the MATTER OF the EXTRADITION OF Mark BENJAMIN

CASE NO. 21-MC-22022-UNA/JG

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed October 7, 2021

Manolo Reboso, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for United States of America.

ORDER CERTIFYING EXTRADITION OF MARK BENJAMIN

Jonathan Goodman, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Government's Complaint/Application for Extradition requesting that Mark Benjamin be extradited to the United Kingdom. [ECF No. 1]. Benjamin is presently detained pending conclusion of the extradition proceedings. [ECF No. 12]. The United States filed a memorandum in support of extradition [ECF No. 17]; Benjamin filed a response objecting to extradition [ECF No. 19]; and the United States filed a reply [ECF No. 20].

The Undersigned held a hearing lasting more than an hour, addressing the issues discussed in the parties’ legal memoranda and reviewing the evidentiary submission in support of extradition. [ECF No. 21]. After the hearing, the Undersigned ordered additional briefing on discreet topics. [ECF No. 22]. Both Benjamin and the United States filed memoranda in response to the Undersigned's Order. [ECF Nos. 23; 24].

The Undersigned has reviewed the law, the parties’ memoranda, the documents from the United Kingdom, and the relevant treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. For the reasons articulated below, the Undersigned hereby GRANTS the Government's request for an order certifying extradition.

I. BACKGROUND

Mark Benjamin was arrested in this District on June 2, 2021, on a warrant and complaint issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184. [ECF No. 1]. The Court held a detention hearing on June 10, 2021, to consider the Government's Request for Detention Pending Extradition Proceedings. [ECF No. 7]. The Court heard argument on whether Benjamin should be detained pending the conclusion of his extradition proceeding, and the Government's request was granted. [ECF No. 12].

The United Kingdom seeks Benjamin's extradition to try him on four counts¹ of child cruelty, in violation of United Kingdom law, to wit: Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which is punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment. Benjamin allegedly committed these offenses within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

Benjamin was first arrested on January 24, 2020, on suspicion of child cruelty and assault by beating² against his minor daughter, V.B. He was released on bond and ordered to appear in court on May 10, 2020. Benjamin failed to appear at this and future proceedings. [ECF Nos 7; 17-1, p. 70]. In July 2020, United Kingdom authorities became aware that Benjamin was residing in Florida. [ECF No. 7].

Based on this, a magistrates’ court sitting in Highbury Corner, London, United Kingdom issued a warrant for Benjamin's arrest on October 27, 2020, for one charge of child cruelty and one charge of assault by beating. Id. A further warrant was issued on July 6, 2021, for three additional counts of child cruelty. [ECF No. 17-1, pp. 49-50].

Detective Constable Jeyanthini Rajeskanna's ("Detective Rajeskanna") affidavit outlines the following relevant facts as evidence of the four crimes with which Benjamin has been charged [ECF No. 17, pp. 26-40]:

The indicted charges involve four instances of child cruelty, covering the following incidents: (1) Between May 23, 2019 and January 17, 2020, Benjamin regularly slapped V.B. around the ears; (2) A specific incident on May 24, 2019, where Benjamin punched V.B. in the face, causing a black eye, bruising, and swelling to her face; (3) Between June 1, 2019 and July 31, 2019, Benjamin would instruct V.B. to bend over with her trousers and knickers pulled down, and repeatedly strike her on her bottom with his shoe; and (4) A specific incident on January 16, 2020, where Benjamin punched and slapped V.B.’s face, head, and ears, causing a cut to her ear, and a lump to the top of her head.

Detective Rajeskanna interviewed V.B. after one of V.B.’s schoolteachers confiscated a note in which V.B. disclosed to her friends that Benjamin had been striking her. In the interview, V.B. described how Benjamin punched her in the eye on May 24, 2019, giving her a black eye. She said she had been sitting on the sofa and Benjamin became angry with her, began shouting and stuck her. Immediately after the incident, Benjamin took her and her siblings to Rome so V.B.’s mother would not see the injuries. Due to the punch, V.B.’s ears began to ring, she was bleeding, and temporarily lost sight.

V.B. next disclosed that Benjamin had punched her on the ears and head, causing a bump, on January 16, 2020. V.B. described Benjamin as an individual who cannot control his emotions and becomes angry. This conduct escalates when her mother is not present. V.B. stated that her father would slap her around the ears on a fortnightly basis (i.e., every two weeks).

M, V.B.’s mother, gave a statement to the police on May 19, 2021. M described how, in June or July of 2019, she witnessed Benjamin instruct V.B. to go to the sofa, bend over, and pull her trousers and knickers down. Benjamin next began striking V.B.’s bottom with his shoe and increased the force after M tried to intervene.

M has seen Benjamin strike V.B. on two occasions. Additionally, M informed police that in July 2019, she saw swelling on V.B.’s ear and V.B. told M that Benjamin had slapped her and caused the injury. M also informed police that her other children, M.B. and S.B., confirmed Benjamin struck V.B. and caused injury on May 24, 2019.

On June 14, 2021, Danielle Bastienne, a teacher at V.B.’s school, gave a statement to police letting them know she is the teacher who confiscated the note.

On May 8, 2020, Doctor Paul De Keyser ("Doctor Keyser") gave a statement to police. Doctor Keyser examined V.B. on January 29, 2020 and observed marks on V.B's head, bruising on her ear, swelling, and an abrasion, which were consistent with V.B.’s description of abuse.

On January 24, 2020, Benjamin was arrested at his home. Benjamin was interviewed the following day and denied all allegations.

As part of the follow-up investigation, the police obtained a video interview of V.B., a copy of the confiscated note, and verification of the trip to Rome.

On May 28, 2021, the United States Attorney's Office filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] in this District seeking a warrant for Benjamin's arrest pending his extradition to the United Kingdom. The Court issued an arrest warrant that same day. According to the Complaint, the United States was acting on the request from the Government of the United Kingdom, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and its extradition treaty³ with the United States ("the 2004 Treaty").

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A foreign or international extradition proceeding is not a criminal case. Martin v. Warden, Atlanta, Pen , 993 F.2d 824, 829 (11th Cir. 1993). Formal extradition is a diplomatic process, governed generally by the applicable extradition treaty and the federal extradition statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3181 - 3196. In re Extradition of Shaw , No. 14-mc-81475, 2015 WL 521183, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2015). Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to international extradition proceedings. Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(a)(5)(A) ; Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3) ; Afanasjev v. Hurlburt , 418 F.3d 1159, 1164-65 (11th Cir. 2005) ; Melia v. United States , 667 F.2d 300, 302 (2d Cir. 1981) ; Bovio v. United States , 989 F.2d 255, 259 n.3 (7th Cir. 1993).

The Court's role is limited; the purpose of an extradition proceeding is to decide only the sufficiency of the charge under the treaty. See Neely v. Henkel , 180 U.S. 109, 123, 21 S.Ct. 302, 45 L.Ed. 448 (1901). This limited inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence is akin to a finding of probable cause. Kastnerova v. United States , 365 F.3d 980, 987 (11th Cir. 2004) (equating sufficient evidence to probable cause).

Although the Court retains a role in extradition proceedings, the Eleventh Circuit has stated:

Extradition ultimately remains an Executive function. After the courts have completed their limited inquiry, the Secretary of State conducts an independent review of the case to determine whether to issue a warrant of surrender. The Secretary exercises broad discretion and may properly consider myriad factors affecting both the individual defendant as well as foreign relations which an extradition magistrate may not.

Martin , 993 F.2d at 829 (emphasis added).

A court is required to certify extradition when the following five factors exist: (1) The judicial officer is authorized to conduct the extradition proceedings; (2) The court has jurisdiction over the fugitive; (3) The applicable treaty is in full force and effect; (4) The crimes for which surrender is requested are covered by the applicable treaty; and (5) There is sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause as to each charge for which extradition is sought. See In re Extradition of Shaw , 2015 WL 3442022, at *5 (citing Fernandez v. Phillips , 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S.Ct. 541, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925) ).

III. ANALYSIS

a. The Undersigned is Authorized to Conduct the Extradition Proceeding

There is no dispute over the Undersigned's authority to preside over an extradition proceeding. The extradition statute provides that extradition proceedings may be held by "any justice or judge of the United States, or any magistrate judge authorized so to do by a court of the United States" and "[i]f, on such hearing, he deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention, or under section 3181(b), he shall certify the same." 18 U.S.C. § 3184. In the Southern District of Florida, "[e]ach United States Magistrate Judge ... may ... [c]onduct extradition proceedings, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3184." Local Rules, Magistrate J. Local R. 1(a)(3).

b. The Court has Jurisdiction Over Benjamin

Benjamin was arrested within...