Abstract
The Gonzalez case is the latest in a growing series of cases that chip away at the Rule of Non-Contradiction. The case, for all practical purposes, entailed a trial on the merits before the extradition magistrate. This Article takes issue with Gonzalez and other cases that erode the Rule of Non-Contradiction. Recognizing the fairness concerns that motivate deviation from the Rule, this Article proposes a modification to it. Specifically, this Article proposes that courts adopt an approach similar to that used in civil cases for deciding a motion for summary judgment. If the accused's evidence is such that no reasonable fact finder could disagree with it, then the court should admit it, even if it provides a defense to the charges or contradicts evidence presented by the requesting government.
Recommended Citation
Jacques Semmelman,
The Rule of Non-Contradiction in International Extradition Proceedings: A Proposed Apporach to the Admission of Exculpatory Evidence,
23 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1295
(1999).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol23/iss5/2