Hoxha v. Levi
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
371 F. Supp. 2d 651 (2005)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Krenar Hoxha (plaintiff) was a naturalized citizen living in the United States after having moved from Albania. In accordance with an extradition treaty, the Republic of Albania (Albania) submitted an extradition request for Hoxha on charges of murdering a married couple and their son. The district court issued a warrant for Hoxha’s arrest. Evidence was presented to a magistrate judge to determine Hoxha’s eligibility for extradition. The evidence included Hoxha’s relative in possession of the murder weapon, the victims’ surviving daughter who witnessed the shooting and could identify the shooter, and witness statements detailing sightings of Hoxha with a gun near the victims’ residence. One statement was allegedly recanted. After reviewing the record and determining that murder was an extraditable offense under the applicable treaty, the magistrate judge found Hoxha to be eligible for extradition. Hoxha filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing an insufficiency of the evidence due to the recanted witness statement and claiming that extradition would expose Hoxha to torture in violation of Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Convention Against Torture).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schiller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
