Mexico Broke Own Rules, Durazo’s Attorneys Argue

Attorneys for former Mexico City Police Chief Arturo Durazo Moreno argued in court Thursday that Mexican authorities had violated their own legal procedures in charging Durazo with possessing foreign-made items apparently smuggled into Mexico.

The attorneys, attempting to blunt accusations that Durazo had accumulated more than $9 million in lavish villas and savings through extortion and corruption, also presented testimony indicating that Durazo had legitimate business interests that could explain his fortune.

The two-pronged defense was the first attempt by Durazo to defend himself against extradition to Mexico. The former chief has been accused of extorting payments from subordinate police officers, possessing illegal arms collections and failing to pay customs duty on foreign-made items found in his homes.

Assistant U.S. Atty. J. Stephen Czuleger repeatedly objected to the introduction of information on both defense counts. He denied that Mexico had violated any procedures and said that the defense had misinterpreted Mexican law. He also questioned the admissibility of evidence indicating that Durazo may have had sufficient legitimate business interests to explain his wealth.

Limits of Treaty

Czuleger, who is representing the Mexican government under the extradition treaty, has repeatedly charged that the treaty severely limits the type of evidence a defendant can present in an extradition proceeding.

“The law is crystal clear on this,” Czuleger said, stressing that the purpose of the hearing is only to determine if there is probable cause to return the defendant to his homeland for trial. “This court is not to involve itself in issues of Mexican law.”

Defense attorney Bernard Zimmerman countered: “If you take (the U.S. attorney’s) position to its logical conclusion, there would be no extradition hearing.”

U.S. Magistrate Volney V. Brown, ruling in favor of Czuleger, declined to allow a Mexican criminal attorney to testify about the purported violations of Mexican procedure. However, he allowed Zimmerman to present the evidence for the sake of appeals that defense attorneys have said they plan to make.

Items’ Value Disputed

During that presentation, Zimmerman charged that Mexican authorities had failed to give Durazo the 10 days required by law to answer charges that he did not have importation papers for items seized from his homes. The items, whose exact value is being contested, range from crystal chandeliers and art pieces to plastic plates.

Zimmerman argued that it is not a crime in Mexico to merely own such items, only to fail to secure proper importation papers for them. He indicated that Durazo has papers for some items and that others, while foreign-made, were purchased in Mexico or were given to him as gifts.

The defense also called a San Francisco investment manager to testify about how much money Durazo could be expected to accumulate through his business investments and nearly $1 million in police bonuses that Durazo reportedly earned for discovering illegal contraband over a 20-year period.

The witness, Paul Violich, said Durazo had told him those investments included several trucking firm interests, a liquor store and a beauty shop. Income from those investments--along with interest earned from their sale over a period of years--could reasonably be expected to explain some of the $9 million in property and savings accounts Durazo is known to own, Violich said.