2 Counts Have Lapsed, Durazo Lawyers Argue

Attorneys for former Mexico City Police Chief Arturo Durazo Moreno claimed Friday that their client cannot be legally extradited to Mexico on two of the three charges against him--extortion of bribes and stockpiling of arms--because the statute of limitations is up on both.

On the third day of extradition proceedings before U.S. Magistrate Volney V. Brown Jr., Durazo’s attorneys made the claims based on the testimony of a Mexican criminal attorney, who argued that the statute of limitations began to run the first day the alleged crimes began to be committed.

The legal theory, which runs counter to that in documents submitted by the Mexican attorney general, was described as “novel” by one of the five members of the Mexican attorney general’s staff present in the courtroom, and “foolish” by another.

According to portions of the 12 volumes of evidence submitted against Durazo in the case, about 150 military-style arms were seized from his homes in January, 1984. The documents also contain evidence indicating that Durazo allegedly extorted about $250,000 in periodic payments from officers under his control during his six-year term that ended in 1982.

Durazo is also charged with illegal possession of imported goods found in his home.

Mexican attorney Dr. Rogelio Vasquez Sanchez, who was called as an expert witness by the defense, argued in his testimony that both charges are not “continuing” crimes under Mexican law, and therefore are committed only once, on the first day the crime is complete.

Thus, he concluded, the three-year statute of limitations on illegal stockpiling of arms was up in 1984, three years after the 1981 date Durazo was known to have owned such weapons. By the same theory, he argued, the seven-year statute of limitations on extortion was up in 1983, seven years after he allegedly demanded the first payment from his men. The remaining six years of payments were merely the “effects” of the initial crime, he explained.

Asked during a recess to clarify the theory presented by the defense, Juan Velasquez, Durazo’s lead Mexican criminal attorney, gave his interpretation:

“Bigamy would be the same thing. If the statute of limitations on bigamy is three years, and you don’t prosecute me for bigamy in that time, then I have two wives for good, because the crime was committed the day I married the second wife. It is not a continuing crime.”

Vasquez’s testimony elicited open laughter from members of the Mexican news media attending the hearing.

The once-powerful Durazo, who has listened carefully to the testimony through a translator, chuckled out loud himself when Assistant U.S. Atty. J. Stephen Czuleger attempted to find out if, under the theory, Durazo would be immune from prosecution for life if he were to begin collecting Sherman tanks.

“We don’t want with our levity to mislead the public with what’s happening in this court,” Brown said, striking Czuleger’s hypothetical question from the lengthy, often confusing testimony.

Brown ordered attorneys for both sides to present legal briefs to him on the issue by Tuesday. The hearing, which is being held in Los Angeles because Durazo established residency here briefly after leaving Mexico in 1983, will resume on Wednesday.