4 ms·

This is correct. The DOJ will unveil a “superseding indictment” once he is on our soil that will eliminate the testimony and charge him with more vague crimes l

This is correct. The DOJ will unveil a “superseding indictment” once he is on our soil that will eliminate the testimony and charge him with more vague crimes like “wire fraud” and “conspiracy” that carry multi-year sentences. The require allegations of much more serious and harder to prove crimes in order to extradite him. He will be held for 3-5 years before his trial begins. The trial will last a month and he will be found guilty of at least 1 charge, enough to receive a sentence of 8 years.

pmyteh 5y ago
The principle of specialty prevents a requesting state changing the charges after extradition, without re-requesting the extraditing state. I mean, the UK has no way of stopping it, but it would undermine the legal comity that the US needs to get future cases extradited. Murder, for example, is only extraditable from the UK to the US if binding commitments are made not to seek the death penalty. If the UK courts stopped trusting US commitments then that would be at serious risk. Incidentally, this would also have been a bar to onward extradition from Sweden to the US if that had gone ahead. I'm not saying they couldn't get consent for the UK for a superseding indictment, but it's certainly not as straightforward as dropping one they've prepared earlier and laughing manically.
- trasz 5y ago
  One key element of UK<->US relations is that the US can do literally anything and the UK will quietly accept it. Good example is the Anne Sacoolas case, where an NSA operative killed someone in a traffic accident, driving on the wrong side of the road, then fled the country, claiming diplomatic immunity. She avoided any charges, and the US won't extradite her - despite her lying about the immunity and fleeing from the country - because US.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    That's absolutely true on a political level. I'm not so sure that it would apply to breaches of judicial assurances. British judges are cranky, have a strong sense of the dignity of their office and role, and would personally face no consequences for poking the US authorities in the eye with a stick.

pmyteh 5y ago

The principle of specialty prevents a requesting state changing the charges after extradition, without re-requesting the extraditing state. I mean, the UK has no way of stopping it, but it would undermine the legal comity that the US needs to get future cases extradited. Murder, for example, is only extraditable from the UK to the US if binding commitments are made not to seek the death penalty. If the UK courts stopped trusting US commitments then that would be at serious risk. Incidentally, this would also have been a bar to onward extradition from Sweden to the US if that had gone ahead. I'm not saying they couldn't get consent for the UK for a superseding indictment, but it's certainly not as straightforward as dropping one they've prepared earlier and laughing manically.

trasz 5y ago
One key element of UK<->US relations is that the US can do literally anything and the UK will quietly accept it. Good example is the Anne Sacoolas case, where an NSA operative killed someone in a traffic accident, driving on the wrong side of the road, then fled the country, claiming diplomatic immunity. She avoided any charges, and the US won't extradite her - despite her lying about the immunity and fleeing from the country - because US.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  That's absolutely true on a political level. I'm not so sure that it would apply to breaches of judicial assurances. British judges are cranky, have a strong sense of the dignity of their office and role, and would personally face no consequences for poking the US authorities in the eye with a stick.