Sam Bankman-Fried's Objections to US Charges Post Extradition Have Precedent in the Supreme Court

ARGUMENT

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

A. The Supreme Court Held in United States v. Rauscher that Individual Defendants Have Standing to Assert the Rule of Specialty.

Supreme Court precedent supports Mr. Bankman-Fried’s standing to raise objections based on the rule of specialty here. In United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234 (1886), the Supreme Court held that the rule of specialty is a “right conferred upon persons brought from a foreign country into” the United States, even where, as there, the requesting state did not formally object to the prosecution for additional offenses. See Rauscher, 119 U.S. at 424, 430-31, 7 S. Ct. at 246 (noting that defendant may file a writ of error or writ of habeas corpus to challenge extradition treaty violations); United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 667, 112 S. Ct. 2188, 2195 (1992) (acknowledging Rauscher’s continuing applicability). The Rauscher Court explained that “it is impossible to conceive of the exercise of jurisdiction in such a case for any other purpose than that mentioned in the [extradition] treaty, and ascertained by the proceedings under which the party is extradited, without an implication of fraud upon the rights of the party extradited, and of bad faith to the country which permitted his extradition.” Rauscher, 119 U.S. at 422, 7 S. Ct. at 242 (emphasis added).