Sam Bankman-Fried Has Standing to Assert Extradition Treaty Violations Under International Law

ARGUMENT

II. Mr. Bankman-Fried Has Standing to Invoke the Rule of Specialty.

D. Six Circuits Have Also Held that Individual Defendants Have Standing to Assert the Rule of Specialty.

The above reading of Barinas is consistent with the approach taken by other circuits. Indeed, six other circuits have expressly interpreted Rauscher to confer individual rights on extradited defendants and accordingly held that individual defendants have standing to assert extradition treaty violations. See, e.g., United States v. Fontana, 869 F.3d 464, 468 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n extradited criminal defendant may not be tried for crimes not the basis for extradition, absent waiver by the treaty partner, when such is the intent of the treaty, and relief under such a treaty obligation can be obtained at the behest of counsel for the defendant in the criminal proceeding.”); United States v. Thirion, 813 F.2d 146, 151 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding that defendant “may raise whatever objections to his prosecution that [the requested state] might have.”); United States v. Najohn, 785 F.2d 1420, 1422 (9th Cir. 1986) (regarding the doctrine of specialty, “the person extradited may raise whatever objections the rendering country might have.”); United States v. Levy, 905 F.2d 326, 328 n.1 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Rauscher gave extradited defendants a right to claim the [rule of specialty’s] protection.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Puentes, 50 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995) (extradited individual “has standing under the doctrine of specialty to raise any objections which the requested nation might have asserted.”); United States v. Thomas, 322 F. App’x 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[W]e believe, as do the majority of other Circuits to rule on this issue, that a defendant . . . has standing to” raise the rule of specialty).