EUGENE HOWARD WOODS, APPELLANT,
v.
ALWYNN J. CRONVICH, SHERIFF, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Habeas corpus in the asylum state is not the appropriate method for raising constitutional questions about the validity of the indictment in the charging state.
Appellant sought habeas corpus to avoid extradition to Ohio, arguing his indictment was invalid due to unconstitutional evidence seizure. The district…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federalism cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant sought by habeas corpus to be discharged from the custody of Louisiana authorities who arrested him pursuant to an extradition request by the Governor of Ohio. He contends the indictment charging him with a crime in Ohio is invalid because based on evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment. The district court denied appellant’s petition on the ground that habeas corpus in the asylum state is not the appropriate method of raising constitutional questions involved in an alleged offense. We agree.
The scheme of interstate rendition of prisoners established by the Constitution 1 and by implementing statutes 2 “contemplates the prompt return of a fugitive from justice as soon as the state from which he fled demands him.” Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 90, 73 S.Ct. 139, 141, 97 L.Ed. 114, 118 (1953). It is fundamental to our federal system that neither the courts of the asylum state, nor federal courts sitting in that state, seek to determine the constitutionality of prosecution in the state from which a fugitive has fled. It is for the courts of the charging state in the first instance to adjudicate the merits of appellant’s claim. Should the appellant be denied relief in the courts of Ohio, he is entitled to raise his constitutional question in the federal courts of Ohio. The courts of the asylum state are limited to deciding whether (1) a crime has been charged in the demanding state; (2) the fugitive in custody is the person so charged; and (3) the fugitive was in the demanding state at the time the alleged crime was committed. United States ex rel. Tucker v. Donovan, 321 F. 2d 114 (2d Cir. 1963) cert. denied sub nom. Tucker v. Kross, 375 U.S. 977, 84 S.Ct. 496, 11 L.Ed.2d 421 (1964); Brown v. Ward, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 275 F. 2d 884 (1960); Johnson v. Matthews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 182 F. 2d 677 (1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608 (1950). Inquiry into the constitutionality of the Ohio indictment not only would usurp the power and responsibility of the courts of Ohio, but would frustrate the purpose of the extradition procedures as well. See Hale v. Crawford, 65 F. 2d 739 (1st Cir.), cert denied, 290 U.S. 674, 54 S.Ct. 92, 78 L.Ed. 581 (1933).
Accordingly, the judgment of .the district court denying appellant’s petition for habeas corpus is
Affirmed.
. U.S.Const. Art. 4, § 2.
. 18 U.S.C.A, § 3182.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. Clarence Tyler v. Henderson, 453 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Watson v. Montgomery, 431 F.2d 1083 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Price v. Pitchess, 556 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1952)
- Johnson v. Matthews, 182 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Studio Carpenters Local Union No. 946 v. Loew's, Inc., 340 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1950)
- MacKay v. Loew's, Inc., 340 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1950)
- United States ex rel. William C. Tucker v. Donovan, 321 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1963)
- Tucker v. Kross, 375 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1964)
- Wright v. New York, 375 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1964)
- Crawford v. Hale, 290 U.S. 674 (U.S. 1933)
- Hale v. Crawford, 65 F.2d 739 (1st Cir. 1933)
- Earnest Frank Brown, Sr. v. Ward, 275 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1960)