When the FBI Comes Calling…®
Show: FOX ON THE RECORD WITH GRETA VAN SUSTERENDate: February 2, 2006
Time: 22:00:00
Tran: 020201cb.260
Type: Show
Head: Entwistle Murder Case
Sect: News; International/Domestic
Byline: Greta Van Susteren
Guest: Douglas McNabb
Spec: Murder; Police; U.K.
VAN SUSTEREN: Police say Neil Entwistle is a person of interest, but no arrest has been made. And tonight, he is presumed innocent. Police flew to England to question him, and now they are searching his car. What is the next step? Can they force him to come back to the United States?
Joining us live in Houston is Douglas McNabb, a federal criminal prosecutor -- criminal defense attorney who specializes in international extradition. Douglas, first of all, no charges at all. Can they force him to come back to the United States with no charges pending?
DOUGLAS MCNABB, FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: They cannot. Before he can have a chance of coming back, he either comes back voluntarily or he's not going to come back. It's incumbent upon the government, either the state or the federal, in order to bring charges against him before the extradition process is brought into play.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. In terms of the extradition process, does it make a difference if they are state charges of the state of Massachusetts, or if, for instance, there were a federal crime?
MCNABB: Doesn't make any difference at all. No, the process is still the same, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, so what are the mechanics? Let's say that a prosecutor goes out and gets someone charged with a crime and now wants to go pick up the person in England. What does that prosecutor do?
MCNABB: Well, the prosecutor has to do two things. Number one is that the prosecutor is going to make a request through NCB Washington, which is National Central Bureau, Washington, which is really Interpol branch in the U.S. -- the prosecutor's going to go to NCB Washington, make a request that NCB Washington go to Lyon, France, and make a request through Interpol Lyon, France, to post a red notice. That red notice is something analogous to an all points bulletin that's sent out to all 184 member countries that there is an arrest warrant outstanding for a particular individual.
Some refer to that as an international arrest warrant. That's wrong. Interpol doesn't have the right to arrest, and so that red notice that's published to the member countries simply is notice that -- that the U.S. is seeking to have an individual arrested.
And the real benefit of doing that is that it basically land locks him because if he were to attempt to leave the U.K. to go to France or to Germany, and if they were to check him at the border and notice that there was a red notice outstanding, then he would be detained.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right...
MCNABB: So the first thing that the U.S. would do would be to file that red notice request.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Let's assume that there's a red notice request asked for and granted. And suddenly, England says, Oh, we got a red notice for Neil Entwistle. He's in our border. What happens?
MCNABB: Well, the second thing that the U.S. Would do -- and basically, these are parallel actions that would be taken. The second thing is that the U.S. would then make a request of the U.K. for a provisional arrest warrant to be issued. A provisional arrest warrant is kind of like a -- is a temporary arrest warrant so that he would be arrested, he would be taken before an extradition judge in the U.K. He would perhaps get out on bail. And in the meantime, the U.S. would have -- depending on upon the treaty in place, would have about 60 days or so in which to file a full-blown petition for extradition.
So now the individual, the defendant, is in an extradition proceeding, and it's kind of like a mini-trial and he would have the right to contest, to fight that extradition.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, and I take it that -- and I take it if you have an extradition treaty with England, which we do, that that certainly is less of a hurdle than if we have no extradition treaty with a country, then we wouldn't even have that proceeding.
MCNABB: Well, that's right. There wouldn't be that proceeding if there is no extradition treaty in place. With regard to the U.K.-U.S., there is an extradition treaty. It was -- went into force in the late '70s. It was supplemented in the '80s. That's the one that is in force now in terms of a treaty.
U.K.-U.S. have executed a new treaty, but the U.S. Senate has not given advice and consent, so the old treaty is in play. But what is interesting with regard to the U.S.-U.K. relationship is that the U.K. on its own, its own legislation post-9/11, passed what is referred to as the Extradition Act of 2003. And that extradition act, that is from a U.K. perspective, says, U.S., if you want to extradite someone from the U.K., you don't have to show probable cause. There's no requirement of a prima facie showing at all.
VAN SUSTEREN: So it's much easier.
MCNABB: You basically show us a copy of the charges.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So much easier. Douglas, thank you very much.