Can a country put a foreign criminal on trial, without catching them?
<p>I'm thinking about a few scenarios here. One scenario is a Pablo Escobar scenario, or a <a href="https://breakingbad.fandom.com/wiki/Eladio_Vuente" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Don Eladio</a> scenario if you're a BCS fan like myself: A drug kingpin operating outside the United States, allegedly orchestrating drug dealing in the United States.</p>
<p>Another scenario is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hassan Nasrallah</a> scenario, where a leader of a Lebanese group considered by some to be a terrorist organization, is allegedly responsible for murders in another country, Israel. There are probably many more examples with other countries, so let's not make this political. Let's take the Pablo Escobar example.</p>
<p>Can the US put the foreign drug kingpin on trial? Say that the US has concrete evidence that the drug kingpin is responsible for crimes in the US, <em>but</em> they haven't managed to arrest them yet. Would it be legal for them to put them on trial in the US without their appearance?</p>
<p>Would it be in the US's interests? What are some advantages and disadvantages of that?</p>
<p>The reason I was thinking about this: As far as I know, in civil lawsuits it's possible to put an individual on trial even if they have completely disappeared to a different country. This is legal as long as they have been served properly, <em>even if they never actually received the notice about the lawsuit.</em> I'm wondering whether the same is possible for the cases above.</p>

<p>The rules of criminal procedure are going to differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In US federal court, for example, a criminal trial in absentia can happen, but only in limited circumstances. See <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_43" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fed. R. Crim. P. 43</a>. A notable example of a defendant not appearing for a federal criminal case is the recent case, arising from the Mueller probe, against Concord Management and Consulting LLC (a Russian entity).</p>

<p><strong>It does sound silly to try a foreigner you haven't caught ...</strong></p>
<p>You ask if it would be <strong>legal</strong> and if it would be in the American <strong>interest</strong>. Colin answered on the legality, so let me cover the second part of the question. Doing so is a way for the legal system to get facts and decisions on record, which may then be used elsewhere in the legal (or political) sphere.</p>
<ul>
<li>If North Korea were to put me on trial <em>in absential</em> for failing to respect the <em>Dear Leader</em>, I'd be honored about the notoriety and slightly worried that they'd send assassins after me.</li>
<li>If the United States were to put me on trial <em>in absentia</em> for trading with an <em>Axis of Evil</em> country, I'd be a lot more worried. The US might then sanction people I do business with for doing business with me, which could mean they stop doing business with me.</li>
</ul>
<p>But going to trial is redundant if the government can simply <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">designate</a> a terrorist organization, which is possible under an executive order. So there is no need for a trial where the state would have to produce (and possibly disclose) evidence.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Can the US put the foreign drug kingpin on trial? Say that the US has
concrete evidence that the drug kingpin is responsible for crimes in
the US, but they haven't managed to arrest them yet. Would it be legal
for them to put them on trial in the US without their appearance?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that fact pattern, no, it would not be allowed under U.S. law.</p>
<p>Other countries sometimes allow trial in absentia. The U.S. generally does not if you have never been arrested at all.</p>

criminal-law international