Attorneys for four alleged drugs dealers yesterday insisted that there was not enough evidence to support the men's extradition to Florida.
Trevor Roberts, Devroy Moss, Gordon Newbold and Sheldon Moore are among seven men the government of the United States has accused of drug crimes.
Yesterday, Murrio Ducille, who appears for Newbold and Moore, challenged the integrity of the wiretap evidence that underpins the case against them.
He noted that a recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Tarquin Kelly highlighted that voice identification is no different from visual identification.
Ducille submitted that an identification should not be allowed when no foundation was established and there was no comparison done of the alleged voice evidence.
Maurice Glinton, the attorney for Roberts and Moss, said there was no evidence to connect them to the alleged crimes.
Glinton will submit more detailed arguments when the hearing resumes before Deputy Chief Magistrate Carolita Bethell on October 7.
Lawyers for Lynden Deal, Bryan Deal and Shanto Curry will also present no case submissions at that time.
U.S. prosecutors requested the extradition of the men in June 2004.  However, they launched several legal challenges that prevented the hearing from proceeding before the magistrate.
In 2007, the Privy Council dismissed an argument that the bilateral extradition treaty between The Bahamas and the United States was unconstitutional.
The court ruled, "Their lordships are of the opinion that there is no merit in any of Mr. Glinton's arguments.  There has already been an inordinate delay in these cases due to the time that disposing of the arguments has occupied at first instance and on appeal. They respectfully agree with the Court of Appeal that the committal proceedings should continue as expeditiously as possible."
However, the proceedings were stayed once again when lawyers for the men challenged the lawfulness of the Listening Devices Act, which purportedly gave police the authority to eavesdrop on their phone calls.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument in 2010 and again ordered the matter to proceed expeditiously.
Then Court of Appeal president Dame Joan Sawyer said at the time, "This is now the fourth time that these matters are being remitted to the learned magistrate, which ought not be since the hearing before the magistrate is only a preliminary inquiry.
"These multiple applications serve only to make a mockery of the administration of justice in this country and put the learned magistrate in the position of not being able to abide by the orders of the higher courts."
The men appealed the decision to the Privy Council, but they did not get the court to stay the proceedings before the magistrate.
Deputy director of public prosecutions Franklyn Williams represents the U.S. government.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian