Preparation of Letters Rogatory

If you need information from a foreign country and must use Letters Rogatory or Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties to obtain the information.  This information furnished by the US Dpartment of State.

Preparation of Letters Rogatory

Disclaimer: The information in this circular relating to the legal requirements of specific foreign countries is provided for general information only and may not be totally accurate in a particular case. Questions involving interpretation of specific foreign laws should be addressed to foreign counsel. This circular seeks only to provide information; it is not an opinion on any aspect of U.S., foreign, or international law. The U.S. Department of State does not intend by the contents of this circular to take a position on any aspect of any pending litigation.

• Summary
• Country Specific Information
• Time Frame for Execution of Letters Rogatory
• Letters Rogatory Checklist
• Drafting Letters Rogatory
• Signature and Authentication
• Translation
• Number of Copies
• Fees
• Transmittal to Department of State
• Transmittal by Department of State to Foreign Authorities Through Diplomatic Channel
• Execution of Letters Rogatory by Foreign Court
• Return of Letters Rogatory
• Authority
• Questions
• Reference
• Sample Letters Rogatory

Summary: Letters rogatory are the customary method of obtaining judicial assistance from abroad in the absence of a treaty or executive agreement. Letters rogatory are requests from courts in one country to the judiciary of a foreign country requesting the performance of an act which, if done without the sanction of the foreign court, could constitute a violation of that country's sovereignty. Letters rogatory may be used in countries where multi-lateral or bilateral treaties on judicial assistance are not in force to effect service of process or to obtain evidence if permitted by the laws of the foreign country. 22 CFR 92.54provides a definition of letters rogatory.

Country Specific Information: See the Department of State’s country specific judicial assistance information on our Internet page.

Time Frame for Execution of Letters Rogatory: Execution of letters rogatory may take a year or more worldwide. Letters rogatory are customarily transmitted via the diplomatic channel , a time-consuming means of transmission. The time involved may be shortened by transmitting a copy of the request through local legal counsel if permitted in the foreign country. Lists of foreign attorneys are available on the Internet pages of the consular sections of U.S. embassies and consulates abroad .

Letters Rogatory Checklist:

• First, review the country specific judicial assistance information on the Department of State internet page.
• Then review U.S. state or federal law on the subject.
• See suggested text for letters rogatory at the end of this guidance.
• After you prepare your draft, consider whether a judge in a foreign country speaking another language will understand what you are requesting.
• You will then need to secure the signature of a judge in the United States on your Letters rogatory.
• Next, obtain any necessary authentications specified in the Department of State country specific information.
• If the language of the country where the letters rogatory are to be presented is not English , you will need to obtain a certified translation of the letters rogatory and any supporting documents and prepare the entire package in duplicate for transmittal to the U.S. Department of State.

Suggestions for Drafting Letters Rogatory:

• Letters rogatory should be written in simple, non-technical English and should not include unnecessary information which may confuse a court in the receiving foreign country.
• Avoid use of the term discovery.
• Requests for documents should be as specific as possible to avoid the appearance of a fishing expedition which may result in refusal of the foreign country to execute the request. Try not to use phrases such as any and all documents.
• If particular procedures to be followed by the foreign court are preferable, include the specifics in the letters rogatory (for example, verbatim transcript, place witness under oath, permission for U.S.or foreign counsel to attend or participate in proceedings if possible, etc.)
• The letters rogatory should be addressed To the Appropriate Judicial Authority of (Insert name of Country).
• The form of letters rogatory depends on the country to which it is addressed and the assistance being sought. Some countries have statutory guidelines for granting assistance. See our country specific judicial assistance information .

Essential elements of letters rogatory:

• A statement that a request for international judicial assistance is being made in the interests of justice;
• A brief synopsis of the case, including identification of the parties and the nature of the claim and relief sought to enable the foreign court to understand the issues involved;
• The type of case [e.g. civil, criminal, administrative];
• The nature of the assistance required [compel testimony or production of evidence; service of process];
• Name, address and other identifiers, such as corporate title, of the person abroad to be served or from whom evidence is to be compelled, documents to be served;
• A list of questions to be asked, where applicable, generally in the form of written interrogatories;
• A list of documents or other evidence to be produced;
• A statement from the requesting court expressing a willingness to provide similar assistance to judicial authorities of the receiving state;
• Statement that the requesting court or counsel is willing to reimburse the judicial authorities of the receiving state for costs incurred in executing the requesting court's letters rogatory.

Signature and Authentication: Letters rogatory must be signed by a judge. The clerk should not sign on behalf of the judge. For most countries, the seal of the court and signature of the judge is sufficient. Consult our country-specific information for guidance about authentication procedures for particular countries. Many countries will not accept letters rogatory issued by an Administrative Law Judge. In administrative cases, it is possible to obtain letters rogatory issued by a federal district court under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651.

Translation: The letters rogatory and any accompanying documents must be translated into the official language of the foreign country. The translator should execute an affidavit as to the validity of the translation before a notary.

Number of Copies: Forward to the U.S. Department of State for transmittal to the foreign authorities:

• The original English version bearing the seal of the court and signature of the judge [or a certified copy]; a photocopy of the English.
• The original translation and a photocopy of the translation.
• The original documents will be served upon the designated recipient or deposited with the foreign court in connection with a request for evidence, and the copies returned to the court in the U.S. as proof of execution.
• For requests involving multiple witnesses in diverse locations, either prepare a separate letters rogatory for each witness, or provide a certified copy of the single letters rogatory (plus translation and duplicate copy noted above) for each witness. The foreign country may assign the matter to different courts.

Fees: The current consular fees for transmittal of letters rogatory are available in 22 CFR 22.1 Schedule of Fees. Counsel are requested to submit a certified bank check payable to the U.S. Embassy (insert name of capital of the foreign country, for example, U.S. Embassy Tokyo). Corporate or personal checks are not acceptable. Foreign authorities may also charge a fee. Counsel will be notified by the U.S. embassy and/or the Office of American Citizens Services and Crisis Management in the Department of State if the embassy is advised by foreign authorities of any applicable local fees. There is no consular fee for letters rogatory on behalf of federal, state or local government officials. If the letters rogatory request compulsion of evidence from more than one witness or service of process on more than one person, multiple fees may be charged if more than one foreign court is required to execute the request due to multiple jurisdictions.

Transmittal to the Department of State: The letters rogatory and accompanying documents may be submitted to the Office of American Citizen Services, (CA/OCS/ACS), U.S. Department of State, SA-29 4 th Floor, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520-0001. Phone 1-888-407-4747.

Cover Letter: The documents should be accompanied by a cover letter including the following elements:

• Name of case;
• Docket number;
• Foreign country;
• Nature of request: (service of process; compulsion of testimony; production of documents, etc.)
• Person to be served or from whom evidence is to be obtained: (name and address mandatory, phone number if possible.)
• Mailing address of U.S. court to which the executed letters rogatory should be returned:
• Special instructions: (Example, Federal Express account number; U.S. hearing/trial date, etc.)
• Fee enclosed
• Deposit (if required) enclosed:
• Statement of responsibility for additional costs incurred in excess of the required deposit which accompanies the letter.
• Local foreign counsel (if any): (name and address, phone number)
• Name, address, telephone, fax number and email address of requesting attorney in United States.

Transmittal of Letters Rogatory by Department of State to the Foreign Authorities through Diplomatic Channel: Letters rogatory generally are transmitted to foreign judicial authorities through the diplomatic channel. The diplomatic channel is a route by which the documents are sent to the foreign court. The normal process is as follows:

• Letters rogatory transmitted by court or counsel to Department of State;
• Letters rogatory transmitted by Department of State to U.S. Embassy;
• Letters rogatory transmitted to Ministry of Foreign Affairs by U.S. Embassy;
• Letters rogatory transmitted to Ministry of Justice by Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
• Letters rogatory transmitted to Foreign Court by Ministry of Justice.

Execution of Letters Rogatory by the Foreign Court: The foreign court will execute letters rogatory in accordance with the laws and regulations of the foreign country. In compelling evidence, for example, many foreign courts do not permit foreign attorneys to participate in their court proceedings. Not all foreign countries utilize the services of court reporters or routinely provide verbatim transcripts. Sometimes the presiding judge will dictate his or her recollection of the witness' responses.

Return of Executed Letters Rogatory: When letters rogatory are executed by the foreign authorities, they are generally returned to the Department of State via the diplomatic channel and the Office of American Citizens Services will send them to the requesting court in the United States via certified mail. Requesting counsel is also notified. At the request of the court, the executed letter rogatory and proof of service/evidence produced can be returned directly to requesting counsel. If transmittal by commercial express delivery service is preferred, please include your account number in the covering letter.

Authority: The issuance of letters rogatory by federal courts is provided for under Rule 28(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. and Rule 4(f)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P . Letters rogatory have also been issued under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651. 28 U.S.C. 1781 and 28 U.S.C. 1782 describe the transmittal of letters rogatory through the Department of State and through the district courts; 28 U.S.C. 1696 provides for the use of letters rogatory for service of process pursuant to a request by a foreign tribunal; Consular procedures for transmittal of letters rogatory are detailed in 22 CFR 92.66: Article 5(j), Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 UNTS 261; TIAS 6820 (where applicable); and Bilateral Consular Conventions(where applicable.)

Questions: Additional questions regarding letters rogatory should be addressed to the appropriate geographic division of the Office of American Citizens Services, Tel: 1-888-407-4747.

Selected Reference:

American Bar Association, Obtaining Discovery Abroad (2006).

Born and Rutlege, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, Aspen Publishers (2006).

Epstein, Snyder and Baldwin, International Litigation: A Guide to Jurisdiction, Practice and Strategy, Transnational Pub. (1998).

McClean, David, International Co-operation in Civil and Criminal Matters, Oxford University Press (2002).

Ristau, Bruno, International Judicial Assistance, Civil and Commercial, International Law Institute (1995).http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_683.html#summary

Troy Davis execution: Did the death penalty deliver justice?

From the Christian Science Monitor, By Patrik Jonsson:

For his supporters, the execution of Troy Davis marked a grave injustice and showed the death penalty at its worst. But others found their faith in the justice system reaffirmed by the fact that the Davis verdict stood after an abundance of case reviews.

A last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court pushed back Troy Davis's execution by several hours, but in the end, Mr. Davis died by lethal injection Wednesday night in a prison in Jackson, Ga.

"I am innocent," were his last words to the family of Mark MacPhail. "I did not have a gun."

Mr. Davis was convicted of the 1989 murder of Mr. MacPhail, a Savannah, Ga,. police officer.

For thousands around the world, Mr. Davis's death marked a grave injustice, given vexing questions and new doubts about his guilt.

But while many saw the execution as symbolic of a fallible justice system, and an immoral punishment, others found their faith in the system reaffirmed by an abundance of court and executive reviews that, time after time, let the verdict against Davis stand.

The Davis case is but one in a long series of death penalty cases that push individual states to debate the morality, legality, and efficacy of the death penalty.

This week alone, the US Supreme Court ordered stays for two men in Texas scheduled to be executed, while a third, Lawrence Brewer, was executed Wednesday night for the dragging death of James Byrd near Jasper, Texas, in 1998. Alabama has an execution scheduled Thursday.

Davis was convicted in 1991 for the shooting death of off-duty police officer MacPhail, who had come to the aid of a homeless man being beaten near a Savannah, Ga., Burger King. A jury of seven blacks and five whites found that Davis had shot a man earlier in the evening and used the same gun to fire into MacPhail's face and chest, killing the young father of two before he had a chance to draw his weapon.

The murder weapon was never found and defense lawyers cast doubt on a ballistics test that linked shell casings at the scene to casings found at another shooting for which Davis was convicted.

Since the verdict, seven of nine witnesses in the case changed or retracted their accounts, and new witnesses have pointed to the possibility that another man at the scene fired the weapon. But Federal District Court Judge William T. Moore said those new statements amounted to "smoke and mirrors" to obfuscate the original verdict.

On Tuesday, a Georgia clemency board, for the fourth time, declined Davis's request to commute the sentence to life in prison. The Georgia board has commuted three other death row sentences in the last decade.

Full article can be found here.

Troy Davis' Clemency Denial: The Failure of a Legal 'Safety Valve'

From Time:

When Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a recent Republican presidential candidates' debate that his sleep is untroubled by doubts about the guilt of any of the 235 men and women who have been executed on his watch, he pointed out that his state has "a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place" to review death penalty cases. A cornerstone of that process, in Texas and elsewhere, is the Board of Pardons and Paroles, which is designed to act as a safety valve, removed from the emotion of the crime and the courtroom. It's a last resort, not to retry a case, but to ensure that a conviction is so ironclad that there is no doubt that it merits the ultimate punishment.

That safety valve failed in Georgia Tuesday, just as it has on a number of occasions in Texas. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied convicted murderer Troy Davis' last appeal for clemency, setting him on a seemingly unstoppable course for execution Wednesday evening.

For the simplest picture of why that decision was so wrong — as so many of Davis' myriad supporters have pleaded for years — just look at the numbers.

— 7: that's how many of the nine original eyewitnesses have recanted their testimony against Davis.

— 0: the amount of physical evidence linking Davis to the crime (no fingerprints, no DNA, no weapon recovered).

— 3: the number of jurors who voted for death in the original trial who now believe their vote was a mistake.

— 22: the number of years the family of slain police officer Mark McPhail has had to wait for an answer to the question of whether or not Davis would die for the crime.

The last number — a symptom of the interminable appeals process — would seem to speak in favor of simply executing Davis and getting it over with. Justice delayed, as Newt Gingrich said when he fought for a law that limited death penalty appeals, is justice denied (a statement that he seemed to believe pertained only to the families of the victims, not the convicted). But the truth is that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles should have ended this macabre theater when they had the chance three years ago, by commuting Davis' death sentence and either letting him serve out a life term or granting him a retrial.

Beyond all the evidentiary problems of Davis' case — to take one example, police Re-enacted the crime scene with all the eyewitnesses together and talking to each other, a practice which is now unheard of — it never had any hallmarks of a case that should have been eligible for the ultimate penalty. It was a senseless murder late at night that was only half-seen in a half-lit Burger King parking lot. A good man was killed, but even death penalty supporters, a number of whom have called for clemency in Davis' case, would agree that death cases should be reserved for those with the most incontrovertible evidence. Even before witnesses started recanting and jurors started regretting, Davis' case never met that standard.

"Seven of the nine witnesses have recanted at this point. That in and of itself is problematic," says Mary Schmid Mergler, Senior Counsel for the non-profit Constitution Project, whose high-profile advisers (a mix of abolitionists and death penalty supporters) have come out in favor of clemency for Davis. "But the most troubling thing is just the fact that a death penalty conviction rests solely on eyewitness testimony to begin with."

That was one of the arguments made in Monday's board meeting before the five board members appointed by former Governor Sonny Perdue (three of the members are new since Davis' case was initially heard in 2008). It was a quick affair: three hours for the defense, the same for the prosecution — though defense lawyers complained the prosecution got more time — followed by a decision released just after 8am the next morning.

Full article can be found here.

Changes Coming to Police Line-Up Procedures?

A new report released by the American Judicature Society has found that double-blind sequential lineups, which are lineups where the administrating officer does not know which person is the suspect and the witness only views one suspect at a time, produce fewer mistaken identifications that lineup procedures that present all of the suspect photographs at once or simultaneously. The report, “A Test of Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineup Methods: An Initial Report of the AJS National Eyewitness Identification Field Studies,” has implications for reducing wrongful convictions in the United States criminal justice system. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of the 273 convictions overturned through DNA testing. The report is released on the heels of a decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court cited this “troubling lack of reliability” in setting new rules for addressing those weaknesses in New Jersey courtrooms. The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments, in November, in its first significant eyewitness identification case in 34 years. The case, Perry v. New Hampshire, is concerned with whether judges must take a hard look at all identifications arising from suggestive circumstances or only those involving official misconduct. Read more from New York Times or Innocence Project.

FBI Lesson Plan: Muslims Are Terrorist Sympathizers

Whistleblowers say agency's anti-Islamic lesson plans are counterproductive. 

From Slate: 

One of al-Qaida’s goals is to convince mainstream Muslims that their faith requires them to violently oppose American interests. Apparently, the FBI agrees. 

Citing documents leaked by FBI whistleblowers, Wired’s Danger Room blog reports that the agency has been teaching its counter terrorism agents that mainstream American Muslims are “likely to be terrorist sympathizers” and that the Islamic pillar of zakat, or almsgiving, is a “funding mechanism for combat.” Other gems from the Quantico lesson plans include a description of Mohammed as a “cult leader” and a pseudo-scientific graph showing that while Jews and Christians have become more peaceful over time, Muslims have always been violent. 

Danger Room, which has exposed crude anti-Muslim FBI training materials in the past as well, writes that the FBI has dismissed some of those documents as “rudimentary” lesson plans that are no longer in use. But it finds that at least one of the newly uncovered briefings took place as recently as March 21. 

As Mother Jones' Adam Serwer points out, that’s around the same time that Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding to know what standards the FBI uses to vet its counter terrorism trainers. The call followed a Washington Monthly investigation showing that some of those trainers were little more than Islamophobic cranks spewing jokes and anecdotes designed to promote an us-vs-them worldview. 

In the latest Danger Room post, an FBI spokesman responds with the excuse that “a disclaimer accompanied the presentation stating that the views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government.” Danger Room adds: 

Several of these briefings were the work of a single author: an FBI intelligence analyst named William Gawthrop. In 2006, before he joined the Bureau, he gave an interview to the website WorldNetDaily, and discussed some of the themes that made it into his briefings, years later. The Prophet “Muhammad’s mindset is a source for terrorism,” Gawthrop told the website, which would later distinguish itself as a leader of the “birther” movement, a conspiracy theory that denies President Obama’s American citizenship. 

Frustrated with Obama’s inaction on the issue, Lieberman, an Independent from Connecticut, and Collins, a Maine Republican, are now considering drafting legislation to address the problem, Talking Points Memo reported on Tuesday. In a letter to the president, the senators wrote: 

"As we have previously stated in letters to this administration, we have serious concerns that improper training may not be isolated occurrences and could be detrimental to our efforts to confront homegrown terrorism. Since Muslim Americans are our main allies in the fight against violent Islamist extremism domestically, any training that implies otherwise is both inaccurate and counterproductive." 

Full article can be found here.

Department of Justice Report Suggests Corruption in Puerto Rico Police

Today, the New York Times reports that a Justice Department investigation has accused the Puerto Rico Police Department of widespread civil rights violations, corruption and illegal conduct. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero responded to today's story:

The report confirms a breathtaking level of violence and corruption throughout the PRPD. With the facts laid bare, it is now the responsibility of the Puerto Rican government and the Justice Department to make sure the police abuse and brutality end as quickly as possible. Calling the report "a blistering condemnation of the second-largest police force in the United States," the Times notes: The Justice Department began the investigation in part due to complaints by the American Civil Liberties Union. In June, when President Obama visited the island, the A.C.L.U. sent him a letter contending that the police had “engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens” with a degree of impunity that “would not be tolerated in the 50 states.”

The Department of Justice issued a press release which included these highlights:

The Justice Department found reasonable cause to believe that a pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law occurred in several areas, including: Use of excessive force; Use of unreasonable force and other misconduct designed to suppress the exercise of protected First Amendment rights; and Unconstitutional stops, searches and arrests.

GPS Monitoring & the Fourth Amendment in PI Magazine

Check out the latest issue of PI Magazine for our featured article on GPS Monitoring and the Fourth Amendment. The latest on the topic is that we still wait for a Supreme Court opinion which is slated for the 2011 term. The United States just filed its brief in the case of United States v. Jones. The issue the 2011 Supreme Court will decide is: (1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent. Stay Tuned

Public Defender -- Chapter 2

Seattle Community Court Misdemeanor Offenders Create Lake City Mural

NIJ Fingerprint Sourcebook Released

The National Institute of Justice has released the complete edition of The Fingerprint Sourcebook, the definitive guide to the science of fingerprint identification.

Prepared in consultation with law enforcement and forensic experts, The Fingerprint Sourcebook consists of fifteen chapters covering: the anatomy and physiology of friction ridge skin (the uniquely ridged skin found on the palms and soles); the FBI’s Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS); latent print development, preservation and documentation; equipment and laboratory quality assurance; and legal issues.

Midtown Community Court

Social Intelligence

Social Intelligence Corp solely generates reports based on employer pre-defined criteria, both positive and negative. Negative examples include racist remarks or activities, sexually explicit photos or videos, and illegal activity such as drug use. Positive examples include charitable or volunteer efforts, participation in industry blogs, and external recognition.

Federal and state protected class information is redacted from the reports we provide. Employers are only exposed to information that is job relevant and may legally be considered in the hiring process.

Additionally, per FCRA requirements, a new report is run for every job applicant each time they are background checked. While reports must be stored for FCRA compliance, the data within past reports is never re-used.