Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
That's not really what is happening here.
The law says (at least my understanding of it) for an extradition they only have to prove that they have enough evidence to put forth a reasonable case against him. He wants them to hand over every last shred of evidence they have as if it were the actual trial so he can challenge every shred of it.
This would mean his lawyer would likely file countless briefs challenging every last line of every last document and drag this proceeding out forever.
If he loses these rulings, which he has for the moment, he still has the actual extradition hearing in July. If he loses then then he will end up in the US for the actual trial and there will be plenty of opportunities for him to refute all the evidence they have against him.
|
I understand, but keeping evidence from a defendant means there is no way for him to know all charges. Looks very fishy to me. They might get him extradited for this, but then bring other charges against him once he is on US soil. It's similar to the problems Wikileaks people and international bankers are facing.