*1 Mich v WAYNE SHERIFF BROWN COUNTY
PEOPLE v BLOUNT
(Calendar
61875,
3,
12,
Argued
Docket Nos.
62006.
October
Nos.
13).
December
1982.
Decided
Alphonsa
separately
Charles Brown and
Blount were
of
convicted
robbery
imprisoned
in
armed
Alabama and were
at Atmore
escaped
Michigan.
State Prison. Both
and
arrested in
were
cases,
requested
Governor of Alabama
extradition in both
and
Michigan
the
Governor
issued warrants for extradition.
separately petitioned
Blount
Brown and
the Recorder’s
corpus
ground
Court of
for
on
Detroit
writs
that
they
subjected
punishment
were
to cruel and unusual
while
imprisoned
they again
subjected
in Alabama and that
would be
punishment
if
such
returned
Alabama. The
Recorder’s
Court,
Crockett, Jr., J.,
George
initially granted
W.
Blount’s
petition.
Gillis,
Appeals,
P.J.,
The Court of
H.
J.
J.
and N.
JJ.,
Kelly,
Kaufman
M. J.
and
set aside the
order of
Court, noting
changes
Recorder’s
had been made in the
system
prison
since the
court had
its
lower
conducted
(Docket
77-2475).
hearing
77-2474,
appeals.
Nos.
Blount
In
Brown,
Court,
Connor, J.,
the Recorder’s
J.
Michael
denied
P.J.,
Appeals,
Riley,
writ. The Court of
D. C.
and
Gillis
J. H.
Kaufman, JJ.,
original complaint
and N. J.
dismissed an
for a
78-2587).
(Docket
corpus
appeals.
writ of habeas
No.
Brown
opinion by
Levin, joined by
In an
Justice
Chief Justice
Fitzgerald
Williams,
Kavanagh
Supreme
Justices
Court held:
state,
A state
faced with extradition
papers proper
governor’s
on their face and a
warrant
demanding
arrest and extradition of a
from
state’s
[4]
[5, 6] [No reference]
[3]
[2]
[1]
39 Am Jur
31 Am Jur
39 Am Jur
31 Am
31 Am Jur
Jur
2d,
2d,
2d,
2d,
2d,
References
Habeas
Extradition 66.§
Extradition 74.§
Extradition
Habeas
Corpus
Corpus
for Points
§§
78.§
4-6.
§§
77.
Headnotes
Wayne County Sheriff
.
penal system,
inquire
may
constitutionality
into the
conditions
state.
provides
1. The Constitution of the United States
*2
fugitive
shall, upon
from one
who is
state
found
another
crime,
having jurisdiction
of
demand
the state
of his
be deliv-
up
asylum
to that
ered
state.
courts
anof
state are bound
by
provision,
it,
implementing
and,
federal
that
the
statute
adopted, by
where
the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
summary
2. Interstate
was
extradition
intended
be a
and
mandatory
proceeding.
governor’s grant
executive
A
of extradi-
prima
statutory
tion is
facie evidence that constitutional and
requirements
governor
granted
have
met.
a
been
Once
has
extradition,
state,
asylum
upon petition by
a court in the
a
corpus,
fugitive for habeas
can do no more
decide whether
than
order,
the extradition
on
documents
their face are in
whether
petitioner
charged
the
has
a
demanding
been
with crime in the
state,
petitioner
person
whether the
is the
named in the
extradition,
request
petitioner
fugitive.
the
whether
is
Any
unconstitutionality
of
claim
to the
relative
treatment of
fugitive
demanding
the
in the
state
be tested in
courts
must
the
plenary
asylum
of
state. To
that
allow
review in the
state of
fully litigated
demanding
issues which can
be
the
state
plain purposes
summary
defeat
would
the
of the
and manda-
tory procedures
by
authorized
the constitution.
cases,
appears
3. In these
it
that
the conditions in the
prison system
comport
requirements
fail
with the
Eighth
recognition
possibility
of the
Amendment. In
of the
that
interpretation by
Supreme
Michigan
the
the
of
Court
the
guidance
Supreme
by
offered
the
Court of the United States is
incorrect,
stayed
the
execution
the extradition
is
warrants
appropriate
seeking
until either the
time for
in the
certiorari
Supreme
elapsed,
Court of
United
States has
or
Court
denies certiorari.
Ryan,
by
Coleman,
joined
concurring
Justice
part
Justice
dissenting
part, agreed
asylum
state
that a
court in an
may
inquire
not
into the constitutional defects of the
prison system
demanding
in a
state once a claim of extradition
made,
properly
has been
but wrote
in view of the clear
precedent
Supreme
Stay
from the
Court of
United States
court,
appeal
by
requested
of extradition until an
to that
not
appellants,
pursued
is
is unwarranted.
Affirmed.
Opinion op the Court Fugitives Corpus — — — 1. Extradition Habeas Constitutional Law. state, asylum papers A state court in an with faced extradition proper governor’s on their face and a warrant for the arrest fugitive demanding penal and extradition of a from the state’s system, may inquire constitutionality into the passing upon fugi- conditions in the state in (US Const, IV, 2; corpus petition tive’s habeas art 18 USC § seq.; seq.). 780.1 MCL et MSA et 28.1285[1] Fugitives — — 2. Extradition Constitutional Law. provision The courts of an state are bound of the Constitution of the United States that a from one state shall, upon having who is found in another demand of the state crime, jurisdiction state, up of his be delivered to that and, implementing provision, federal statute where (US adopted, by Const, the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act IV, 2; seq.; art 18 USC MCL 780.1 et MSA et § 28.1285[1] seq.). Fugitives Corpus — — — 3. Extradition Habeas Constitutional *3 Law. summary
Interstate extradition was intended to be a and manda- tory proceeding; governor’s grant executive a of extradition is prima statutory require- facie evidence that constitutional and met, and, granted, ments have been it once is a court in the asylum state, upon petition by fugitive corpus, a for habeas can do no more than decide whether the extradition documents on order, petitioner person their face are in whether the is the request, petitioner fugitive named in the and whether the is a (US Const, IV, 2; 3182; seq.; art 18 USC MCL 780.1 et § MSA seq.). et 28.1285[1] Fugitives — — — 4. Extradition Constitutional Law Cruel and Unusual Punishment. A claim of unconstitutional treatment of a in a state demanding extradition, including allegations his of cruel and punishment, demanding state; unusual must be tested in the plenary by asylum allow review courts of the state of issues fully litigated demanding which can be in the state would plain purposes summary mandatory defeat the of the and procedures by extradition authorized the Constitution of the (US Const, IV, 2, VIII; 3182; United States art Am § USC seq.; seq.). MCL 780.1 et MSA et 28.1285[1] Wayne County Fugitives — — Stays— 5. Extradition Constitutional Law of Execution. fugitives stayed, notwithstanding holding of Extradition was of Supreme Michigan the Court of that the of Constitution the States, implementing legislation, United federal and the Uni- Act, require form Criminal Extradition extradition and that findings by a federal of unconstitutional treatment of prisoners demanding state, law, may in the under federal determining be considered in whether execute extradition warrants, recognition possibility Supreme of the the Michigan misinterpreted guidance by of Court had the offered Supreme States, Court of United until either filing petition appropriate time for for certiorari with the Supreme elapses filing Court of the United States without the (US fugitives petition of a or until certiorari is denied Const, IV, §2; seq.; art 18 USC 780.1 MCL et MSA etseq.). 28.1285[1] Opinion Concurring Dissenting by Ryan, J. in Part and in Part Fugitives — — Stays— 6. Extradition Law Constitutional Execution. stay asylum permit A of extradition a court of an state to fugitives Supreme to seek from certiorari Court of the pursue punish- United States to a claim of cruel unusual prisons ment in of the is state unwarranted in precedent Supreme view the clear Court of the United specifically precluding States consideration of such claims in (US corpus proceedings Const, in the art IV, §2; seq.; 18 USC MCL 780.1 et MSA et 28.1285[1] seq.). J. Frank J. Louis General, Kelley, Attorney Caruso, Cahalan, William L. General, Solicitor Reilly Wilson, Edward Prosecuting Attorney, and Anne B. Chief, Deputy Appeals, Civil Wetherholt, Prosecuting Assistant Attorney, the people. *4 Ashford, Cannon, & Lumumba Shakoor (by Lumumba)
Chokwe plaintiff for Brown. Maxwell) &
Maxwell Sniderman J. (by Brenda for defendant Blount. Mich 658 Opinion of the Court
Levin, J. dispositive issue these cases is state, whether a state court in the asylum faced extradition papers proper with on their face and a governor’s warrant escapee extradition of an from penal state’s system, may inquire into the constitutionality prison condi- in the demanding passing tions state in upon the fugitive’s corpus petition. obliged We are by a decision of the Supreme United States Court not, to hold it may and we therefore affirm Appeals the Court of in both cases.
I A Alphonsa Blount was arrested Detroit police September, charged and being with fugitive from justice from the State of Alabama. Blount and, had been convicted of armed robbery according to his own testimony, sentenced to 45 years prison. He from Atmore State escaped Prison while accompanying a prison band on a trip. field 19, 1974,
On November Michigan governor’s warrant for Blount’s arrest was extradition pursuant issued request of the Governor of Alabama. Blount was arraigned the warrant on before a Recorder’s Judge, Court adjourned who the proceedings to permit Blount’s attorney governor’s seek a hearing to prepare a com- plaint for writ of habeas corpus.
After request his governor’s for a hearing was denied, Blount petitioned the Recorder’s Court for a writ of habeas corpus, contending inter alia *5 Wayne County Sheriff Opinion of the Court and right Eighth his under Fourteenth Amendments1 to freedom from cruel and unusual if punishment would be violated he were extradi- application ted to Alabama. The court denied his Appeals and the Court of affirmed. Judge
The Court extradition stayed Recorder’s Court, while Blount to this which on appealed July 24, 1975, remanded the matter to the trial court hearing appellant’s returning "for a on claim subject him to the Alabama would him to cruel in violation of his punishment and unusual Eighth right.”2 Amendment a hearing
Witnesses at the
on remand included
Prison,
Atmore
former
inmate of Alabama’s
Roman Catholic
who had
active in
sister
been
Alabama,
promote prison
efforts to
reform
Associate Commissioner of the Alabama Board
(who
Corrections
had served as warden of all
Alabama’s
in the
of his ca-
major prisons
course
reer), and Blount himself.3 Introduced as exhibits
Eighth
pro
The
Amendment to the United States Constitution
required,
vides: "Excessive hail shall not
posed,
nor excessive fines im
he
prohibition
punishments
nor cruel
and unusual
inflicted.”
against
punishments
cruel and
to the states
unusual
is extended
California,
through the Fourteenth
370 US
Amendment. Robinson
(1962).
82 S Ct
were and orders entered federal courts in Alabama in involving prison cases conditions. 21,
In a January opinion which relied on heavily opinion an issued Alabama fed- (see eral II, below), court one week part earlier judge found that if Blount were returned to Ala- *6 bama he would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The judge stayed extradition war- rant and adjourned the matter for one to year see whether prison Alabama system would im- prove to a point where Blount’s extradition "would longer no be prohibited by Eighth Amendment considerations.” Blount placed was on personal bond with special conditions. later,
One year when the Wayne County Prose- cutor’s Office sought progress submit a report as required by order, the judge’s the Alabama author- ities did cooperate in furnishing information regarding improvements in conditions. On 18, 1977, March the judge issued a final order quashing the extradition warrant and granting the writ of habeas corpus. prosecutor sought an order superintend-
ing control in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals attempted certify this Court question whether the constitutional issues raised by Blount should have litigated been in the courts of Michigan. We denied request for certifica- tion.4
In April, 1978, the Court of Appeals set aside the order granting writ, stating: the. judicial
"We take
changes
notice that
have been
B Charles Brown was convicted of armed robbery January, and was sentenced to 25 years prison. He was incarcerated at June, Atmore Prison and escaped from Atmore in 1976.
Brown was arrested in Michigan on a November, warrant requested 1977. Alabama his return and the Michigan signed Governor of warrant for his extradition on December 1977. *7 Brown then sought a in corpus writ habeas Court, Recorder’s alleging that he was subjected cruel and unusual punishment while imprisoned in Alabama and again would un- subjected be constitutional treatment if returned to that state. alleges
Brown prison while in he fractured his ankle in places, three but authori- prison ties provide refused to him with immediate medi- cal treatment and required him to his perform normal work assignment for two before treat- days ing his He injury. filed an action in an Alabama federal court against and two officers and was informed if he by prison guard that prevailed, he would not live to the money collect damages. The inmate who him his helped prepare
5
(1979).
pleadings beaten, was severely in allegedly connec- tion with his having helped Brown.
The Recorder’s Court denied petition Brown’s on the basis of the Court Appeals decision in case, Blount’s and the Appeals Court of dismissed original complaint that Court for a writ of corpus. granted We leave to appeal.6
II
Eight days before the trial court
issued
opin-
its
Blount,
ion in
a United States district
Alabama
decided two consolidated
class actions
filed on behalf of inmates incarcerated
in Alabama
(MD
prisons.
Locke,
Pugh v
406 F Supp
Ala,
1976). The judge’s opinion graphically
described
the severe inadequacies of
prisons:7
Alabama’s
question
"There can be no
present
that the
conditions
penal
confinement in the
system
Alabama
violate
any
judicial
current
definition of cruel and unusual
punishment, a situation
evidenced
the defendants’
admission that
Eighth
serious
Amendment violations
circumstances,
exist. In these
it
very
is the
confinement
itself which impermissibly
Eighth
contravenes the
Fourteenth
rights
Amendment
plaintiff
of the
classes.
"The conditions in which
prisoners
must
live, as
cases,
established by the evidence in these
bear
no reasonable relationship
legitimate
institutional
goals. As a
they
whole
atmosphere
create an
to
in which
inmates
compelled
are
live
constant fear of vio-
(1979).
cruel and unusual lack of areas, throughout living sanitation infirmaries, the institutions —in presents and food an imminent service — danger every to the of each and health inmate. Prison- physical suffer from further deterioration because ers opportunities there are no for exercise and recreation. prisoners physical Treatment problems with or emotional inadequate. totally previ- is This court has ously penal system provide ordered that reasonable * * medical care for inmates these institutions *. (MD Alabama, Ala, Supp 349 F 285-286 Newman v 1972). inescapa- The evidence in these cases leads to the gross inadequacies ble conclusion that in medical case have not care found been remedied. duty provide "Prison officials are under a inmates protection
reasonable
from constant
threat of violence.
"The evidence establishes that
inmates are housed in
unguarded,
dormitories,
virtually
overcrowded
with no
attempt
violent,
realistic
separate
officials
aggres-
sive inmates
passive
from those who are
or weak. The
generated by
tension
deplorable living
idleness and
conditions
ever-present
contributes further to the
threat
of violence from
refuge.
which inmates have no
response
"The
of the defendants
to the matters
set
forth in
opinion
this
consistently
they
has been that
cannot alleviate the
inadequate
conditions because of
funding by
legislature. However,
the state
a state is not
liberty
at
to afford its
only
citizens
those constitutional
rights which fit comfortably
budget.
within its
Legislature
has
ample opportunity
had
provision
make
for the state to meet its constitutional
responsibilities
area,
in this
and it has failed to do so.”
Supp
406 F
329-330.
The United States district court
spe-
established
cific "minimum
relating
constitutional
standards”
units,
to overcrowding,
segregation
and isolation
*9
In September, the district court held hear- ings to degree determine of compliance with its 2, 1979, orders. On February the judge issued opinion which surveyed Alabama’s efforts at compliance and concluded that there had been a disturbing lack of progress. very "The fact of confinement penal Alabama’s
system continues to Eighth contravene the and Four- teenth rights Amendment plaintiffs. still, "Time does not stand but the Board of Correc- tions and the system years. have for six Their time has now run out. longer The court can no non-compliance brook with the clear command of the Constitution, represented by the orders of the court in this case. Plaintiffs are prompt entitled to and effective Living relief. danger conditions that constitute an imminent health; life; inadequate poses medical care that threat and insufficient security that sanctions the law of jungle facts describe a state of —these emergency demanding decisive action. It is clear that the Board of incapable Corrections is of effective leader- ship. Difficult as position the board’s was made adequate lack of funding, the court finds that the board could have it, ameliorated the confronting conditions but instead contributed to gravity of the situation by its incompetence. indifference and any lack of significant progress original since the hearings in this case strongly suggests that appointment of monitors little, offers if any, hope compliance. of swift The ex- Wayne County Opinion of the Court traordinary circumstances of this case dictate that non-compliance only alternative with the court’s appointment orders is the prisons.” of a receiver for the Alabama Alabama, 628, 630, Supp 466 F Newman v 1979).8 (MD Ala, elected Alabama Governor Fob James Newly inten- appointed Despite good was receiver. expressed petition appointment,9 in his tions compliance reports and in submitted quarterly *10 supervision appointment, under his since his it appears upgrading that of the Alabama process. has been a slow and uneven While system in progress considerable has been made some ad- areas, progress ministrative little has been made goal providing adequate toward the basic of and 15, housing July habitable for all inmates. On 1981, the judge’s unpublished successor10 issued injunctive directing order the release of a number of inmates continued help alleviate overcrowd- ing:11 agreed by parties Depart-
"It is all that the Alabama compliance ment of Corrections is still out of with standards in v Ala- established this court Newman bama, Locke, supra, Pugh supra. in It and v is further stipulated by parties all that most of the terms of the long said orders and should have been met before now 8 Alabama, prior challenging Newman v class action the lack of prisons, Pugh medical care in Alabama’s consolidated with v was case, Wallace, companion Locke and its after issuance of the James v judge’s opinion Pugh. Supp 466 F 636-639. opinions judge The United States district the first who issued Johnson, Judge that cause was Frank M. Jr. Robert E. Varner succeeded him when he Appeals. Court of was elevated to the United States overcrowding problem necessity 11 A new facet of the was the housing city county jails some state inmates and because Pugh court’s order in excess of the v of inmates in Locke restricted admission prisons’ capacities. rated 415 Mich Opinion Court * * * compliance that full ultimately must be achieved. attempted provide has every possible [T]his opportunity for the compliance defendants to achieve with both state law and the orders of this court within years. the last nine time,
"During Department this the State of Correc- tions has been continuously in direct violation of the court, present plans orders of this insufficient to relieve the expansion are 9, 1980, condition. On October 1, this 1981, court ordered that March there would be no more than 960 state inmates incarcerated in city county jails 18, or Alabama. May On there 1,606 prisoners were state in city confined and county jails present, 2,100 in Alabama. At there are over * * * in city inmates and county facilities. "Therefore, because of the empowered failure of those construction, fund needed this court has a duty to protect fashion relief to rights constitutional of citizens. Hutto Finney, 437 US 98 S Ct L57 Ed * * * (1978). 2d 522 opinion This court is of the that the rights constitutional plaintiff of the class jeop- are in ardy and any substantial continuation of the incar- ceration of state city inmates in county facilities under conditions and circumstances now current would probably violate their immunity constitutional to cruel punishment. and unusual court result, To avoid this this opinion is only valid substantial relief available to against 'insure inadequate the risk of *11 (see compliance’ 687) Hutto Finney, supra, at is the release of a substantial number of help inmates relieve the overcrowded conditions of the Alabama prison system.” The court ordered that prisoners, 400 later re- 277, duced to be released. 25, On July Alabama released them outright.12 plaintiffs,
The however, continued to be dissatis- fied with the overcrowding and requested the re- lease of prisoners. more 14, 1981, On December the court through an injunction ordered the re-
12 Alabama, See Newman v (CA 1982). 1312, 11, 683 F2d 1316 Wayne County Sheriff 671 Opinion of the Court prisoners parole. lease of 352 on The United States Appeals Court of for the Eleventh Circuit stayed this pending appeal. appeal, order On the Court of Appeals July considered both the and December but dismissed injunctions, appeal of the July order as moot.13 The court vacated the December order: summary, entering "In the district court erred injunction plaintiffs possessed December 14 adequate legal since an 9, remedy in the form of the October through consent order which was enforceable contempt power. court’s injunction Even if the issuance of an had been warranted on December by framing district court abused its discretion relief impermissibly pre-
which was rogative intrusive on the State’s prison parole systems.” administer its 683 F2d 1321. have plaintiffs applied since to have Ala governor, in his
bama’s as receiver of the capacity prison system, attorney general, and commissioner of the Board of Corrections fined or imprisoned for contempt because of their failure to adhere to the A hearing consent decree. on that application is scheduled for January, 1983.14
13See 683 F2d 1316-1317. 14 preparation contempt proceedings, In for the one of the amici prepared comparing reported curiae tables the incidence of violence major prison during comparable periods in Alabama’s facilities in system 1980 and 1982. The tables summarize records of the part and are of the record in the cause. These tables indicate prisoner physical danger faces at least as much now as in reproduce portions 1980 when the consent decree was filed. We reporting facilities, major prison the tables omitting the totals for Alabama’s analysis by facility. "TABLE 1 "Comparison reported during of numbers of incidents of violence periods 9, 1980, January through September January the through September 30, facilities. 1 1 (approx.), major prison in Alabama’s Total = = "Homicide4 *12 672 415 Mich 658 op Opinion the Court
"Assault with 92 weapon5 /80 with "Assault out a 128 weapon6 /295 "Assaults on officers7 44
/87 "Threats on 37 officers8 /22 "Threats9 18
/17 "Rapes10 N/A
/1 "Sexual 8 misconduct11 §2 =
"Total 1980 329 = 1982 535” 1 Table Footnotes: "4 [Department DOC of Code 111. Corrections] "5 'fighting DOC Code weapon’. 121—includes with a 'fighting weapon’, Code 122 & "6 DOC 123—includes without a inmate’, 'fighting’, 'assault on 'assault’. "7 & 129. Code 126 DOC "8 life’, 'attempted 'threatening Code an officer’s DOC 127—includes assault’. "9 'harassment’, threats’, 'threaten DOC Code 124—includes 'verbal ing inmate’, 'threatening the life of an inmate’. "10DOC Code 141. "11 142, offense’, 'sodomy’, DOC Code 143 & 144—includes 'sexual offense’, 'non-forcible sexual 'sexual offense—forcible’.”
"TABLE 2 "Comparison prisoners charged suspected being numbers of or during 1, involved in periods incidents of violence January 1980, through 9, September 1, 1982, January through September (approx.), major in Alabama’s facilities. Total = =
"Homicide "Assault with 144 weapon /204 "Assault with out a 228 weapon /529 *13 Wayne County 673 Opinion of the Court It that conditions in appears penal the Alabama even now fail system comport Eighth with the Amendment; at least there is no reason to suppose that such has progress been made that it can no said, longer be as the district court properly de- 2, on 1979: February clared very "The fact of penal confinement Alabama’s system Eighth continues to contravene the and Four- rights plaintiffs.” teenth Amendment
Ill United States Constitution "A provides: Treason, charged Person State with any Felony, Crime, Justice, or other who shall flee from and be State, found in another shall on Demand of the executive of the State from Authority which he fled, up, be delivered to be removed to the State Const, having Jurisdiction of the Crime.” art US IV, 2, cl 2. The courts an state are § by provision, bound this federal constitutional implementing statute, federal 18 USC and, where adopted, the Uniform Criminal Doran, Michigan Extradition Act.15 v 439 US "Assault on 44 officers /93 "Threats on 37 officers /22 "Threats 18
/26 "Rapes N/A
/4
"Sexual misconduct
8
/60
=
"Total
1980
481
=
1982
938”
adopted
The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act
has been
Michigan.
28.1285(1)
seq.;
seq.
MCL 780.1 et
MSA
et
Walker for corpus habeas relief in California, both state and federal in courts but was unsuccessful until he reached the Supreme Court 9, 1980, of April California. On that court issued a writ of corpus directing a California trial " to hearings 'conduct to determine if the penitentiary in which Arkansas seeks to confine petitioner is presently operated in conformance Eighth with the Amendment of the United States Constitution and thereafter petition decide the on its merits’ ”. 449 87. US 8, 1980,
On December the United States Su- preme Court, without setting the case for argu- ment, reversed in a per opinion, curiam the sub- portion stantive of which quoted is herewith full: IV, 2, "Petitioner Sheriff contends that Art cl and § implementing statute,
its give 18 USC do not 'asylum’ courts of the 'sending’ or authority State inquire state. We into the 'demanding’ conditions of the agree. Michigan Doran, In 282; v 439 US 99 S Wayne County Opinion op the Couet (1978), pro 530; L 2d 521 our most recent Ed Ct subject, stated that on the we nouncement '[interstate summary intended to be a and manda extradition was language of proceeding derived from the tory executive Id., IV, § 2, the Constitution.’ 288. We Article further stated cl that: " grant prima is facie governor’s 'A extradition require- statutory that the constitutional evidence * * governor *. has been met Once ments have granted extradition, considering a court release on ha- (a) corpus more than decide whether the can do no documents beas (b) order; on face are in their extradition charged petitioner has been with crime whether (c) state; petitioner whether the is the in the (d) extradition; request in the person named petitioner fugitive. is a These are historic whether the facts Id., 289. readily verifiable.’ Woodall, L Sweeney "In 344 US 73 S Ct (1952), this Court held that a from Ed Ohio, in the federal courts of Alabama could the ment Alabama. We raise State, constitutionality of his confine- stated: " system 'Considerations fundamental our federal prisoner require that test the claimed unconstitu- tionality that State. his suit of his treatment the courts of required Respondent should be to initiate Alabama, parties may the courts of where all heard, pertinent testimony readily be where all will be available, relief, necessary, if any and where suitable is Id., may be fashioned.’ 90. think Supreme "We Court of California ignored one of its own trial conduct an teachings when it directed these cases *15 general jurisdiction to courts of inquiry present into the conditions of the penal system. Arkansas the Once Governor of California response issued the warrant for arrest and rendition in Arkansas, request to the of the Governor of claims as to penal system constitutional in defects the Arkansas Arkansas, should be heard in the courts of not of those plenary asylum California. 'To allow review in the state litigated charging of that in fully issues can be the state plain purposes summary and would defeat the of the IV, mandatory procedures Art 2.’ Michi- authorized § 415 Mich op Opinion the Court Doran, gan (Emphasis v US 290.” US 87-88. supplied.) dissented, Marshall stating
Justice alone that he would set the case plenary for review because he Sweeney did not believe that Doran and controlled question presented. the pre-Doran remanding
Our order Blount to the evidentiary trial court for an hearing plainly con- templated corpus that a habeas court the asy- lum state could more engage than formalistic could, indeed, quash governor’s review and a ex- ground tradition warrant on the returning demanding state would result deprivation his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth We might Amendments. felt compelled have to abandon that view by Doran, the dictum of since issue there was whether the asylum could, courts of state extradition, despite grant an executive re-evalu- ate a determination of probable cause made aby judicial officer in state. Unlike Doran, Brown and do Blount not ask an pre-trial re-examine al- inquiry carried out in ready the demanding state. Woodall, supra, Sweeney greater bears a re- present semblance case but could also be distinguished. Woodall, an escapee from an Ala- prison, bama resisted ground extradition on the that he had been brutally during mistreated his confinement the similar or worse treatment to which he subjected would be if returned would amount to cruel pun- and unusual ishment in violation of his constitutional rights. After the Ohio state courts refused to entertain his claim, sought Woodall corpus in the federal courts. The United States Court Appeals court, Sixth Circuit directed the district which had *16 Wayne County op Opinion the Court petition, hearing dismissed the to conduct a on the merits of the constitutional claim. The Supreme reversed, Court saying: case, present "In the as cases cited [other
Court], court fugitive justice a from has asked the federal pass upon constitutionality his state, demanding although his incarceration demanding and question party state is not a before the federal
although attempt he has no made to raise such a question in the state. The is whether, should entertain the circumstances, under these the district court
fugitive’s application
on its merits.
"Respondent
showing
makes no
that relief is unavail-
able
him in the
courts of Alabama. Had he never
custody
jailers
certainly
eluded
of his former
he
privilege permitting
would be entitled to no
him to
penal process by
brought
attack Alabama’s
outside the territorial confines of
an action
in a
forum
appear
where there would be no one to
answer
* * *
that State.
"By
help’, respondent
resort to a form of 'self
has
changed his
prisoner
status from that of a
of Alabama
fugitive
to that of a
from Alabama. But this should not
authority
affect the
of the Alabama courts to determine
validity
imprisonment
the
scheme of interstate rendition as
of his
in Alabama. The
set forth
both the
Congress
Constitution and the statutes which
has en-
implement
Constitution,
acted to
prompt
state from which
do
contemplates
the
the
return of
justice
a
from
as
as
soon
him;
provisions
he fled demands
these
contemplate
appearance
an
by Alabama in re-
spondent’s asylum
against
to defend
the claimed abuses
prison system.”
of its
(Emphasis supplied;
tunity *17 to defend its in the courts of a sister system state would be burdensome to state to required the (3) defend; prisoner gain greater a should no access legal through escape. to remedies where,
The first are inapposite two concerns as here, a in United States district court the demand- ing prisons state has ruled that conditions in its violate the Amendment. Eighth hearings
Extensive the in courts the necessary state would not be to determine whether to returning fugitive the demanding state subject would him to a violation of his constitu- rights, tional for a in already question has determined the in proceed- a ing in which the state authorities have had every in opportunity to defend themselves convenient Blount, In example, forum. for the trial court’s grant decision to corpus writ rested at upon record made hear- evidentiary ing, superfluous, which became almost but almost entirely upon the by determinations made United States district court on a substantial record which included Alabama’s admission condi- in prisons tions its violated guaran- constitutional tees. argument
The that a should not able be to position improve his is not through escape sure, easily answered. To be Brown and Blount placed have in a position themselves favored in to prisoners relation other who remain incarcer- ated under unconstitutional conditions. But this Court is not responsible for the Eighth Amendment existing violations in the prisons. Alabama We are, however, responsible for the future treatment of Blount and Brown. are We asked effect prevent act, extradition, is necessary which County Wayne op Opinion the Court them to cruel and unusual subject question before us is punishment. only will act whether we facilitate mistreat- ment.
This Court thus rests on the horns of squarely compelled by moral dilemma. Are we our role as a part system of the federal to adhere to a rule perceive which we to have been articulated with- courts, exception although out the federal underlying apply concerns that rule with less force application this case and its will almost cer- tainly deprivations result of constitutional rights? comity Can considerations and efficiency lead this Court to act when Alabama’s noncompli- ance with the Constitution has been deter- already sitting mined a United States district court *18 that state? obliged
We conclude that we are Pacileo to by hold that a corpus court the asylum state is limited to the minimal review described therein, and the petitions corpus for habeas by filed Blount must Brown therefore be denied. parallel Pacileo reaffirms a context the present one prescription Doran’s of an ex- role for the of the tremely narrow courts state, a role which in effect to the de- reserves manding adjudication petitioner’s state of all of a legal rights claims that his or have constitutional been violated or will be violated his return. The by Supreme United States appears Court resolved construe the Extradition Clause in accordance Doran, with the sketched in 439 principles supra, US 287-288: purpose preclude any "The of the Clause was becoming sanctuary fugitives justice
from from of another state and thus criminal of 'balkanize’ the administration articulated, justice among the several states. It
680 415 Mich 658 Opinion of the Court in mandatory language, concepts comity of and full credit, faith and clause of Commerce of a found in the immediately preceding Art Clause, IV. The Extradition like the Clause, important served objectives national newly developing country striving to foster na- * * * unity. tional less than in trade and In the justice, administration no commerce, unity national was thought certain autonomy.” by to be served de-emphasizing state lines for purposes, impinging without on essential state
Recognizing importance of comity and full faith and credit and of avoiding "balkanization” the administration of criminal justice, regret we important cannot, those interests in an appro- priate case, outweighed be right of an individual being human to be free from cruel and punishment. unusual
Our
reading
Pacileo indicates that
the United
States Supreme Court
disposed
is not
to allow an
asylum state
court even to consider
a present
finding of unconstitutionality
made
domiciled in
state,16
the demanding
but will re-
16
Arkansas,
The
state in Pacileo was
where Walker had
escaped
and the
captured
from
in 1975. He was
California
1979
early
Governor of California issued the warrant in
1980. See
IV However, in recognition of the possibility that we interpreted have incorrectly guidance of- fered Court, United States Supreme we stay execution of the extradition warrants for Brown (1) and Blount18 until either the appropriate time filing petition of a for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has elapsed without (2) such a petition having filed; been or the United Supreme States Court denies a timely petition filed for certiorari.
Affirmed. Kavanagh
Fitzgerald, C.J., and Williams, JJ., Levin, concurred with J.
Ryan, (concurring part and dissenting in J. part). I am in total agreement with my colleague Walker, that Pacileo v 86; 449 US S Ct L reh den (1980), Ed 2d 304 US 101 S Ct 1421; 67 L (1981), Ed 2d 385 requires the affirma- tion of the decisions of the Court Appeals below resulting the denial of writs of corpus for the noted, defendants. As he has the United Supreme States Court has found that a case, December, In the instant there is a district court order of 1981, releasing prisoners due to unconstitutional conditions prison system pending contempt proceeding and a concern- ing the state’s failure to correct those constitutional violations. See supra. fns 12 and 14 litigation prior The commenced in Alabama to 1972 does not appear brought any significant change living to have about in the prisons. conditions in Alabama stay apply any abeyance pending will also cases held in our decision in the instant case. *20 682 415 Mich 658 Opinion by Ryan, J. asylum may inquire
in the into the prison system constitutional defects of the of the demanding state once a claim of extradition has properly upon been made state.
However, I dissent from the inherent criticism of
Supreme
Court’s decision in Pacileo that
it
recognize
exception
failed to
to the
man-
clear
IV, § 2,
date of article
2cl
of the Constitution of
requiring
the United States
a state to deliver a
justice
from
to the state from which he
upon
fled
demand. The Pacileo Court considered
language
both the
of the Extradition Clause and
policies
clearly determining
the
ity
behind it
uniform-
application
appropriate.
to be
Even assum-
ing
principles
comity
of federalism and
allowing
the interest in
system
a state to defend its
courts,
in its own
where it would be least
prevention
it,
minimal,
burdensome to
are
the "balkanization” of the administration of crimi-
justice
purpose
nal
is the manifest
of the Extradi-
Michigan
tion
Doran,
Clause. See
v
282;
439 US
(1978).
530;
S Ct
say
can Pacileo is unwarranted. It amounts to an affront to the United States Wayne County 1982] Opinion by Ryan, J.
Supreme requested by It Court. has not been appellants upon any my judgment, rest, and does not may
reasonable belief "we have incorrectly interpreted” Pacileo.
Coleman, J., J. Ryan, concurred with part Riley, J., took no in the decision of these cases.