*1
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS,
Judges.
FITZHENRY, Circuit
FITZHENRY,
Judge.
This is an
from an
order of
discharging
the writ of habeas
remanding
relator,
Leander-
McCline,
of William D.
Meyering,
county, 111.,
sheriff of Cook
to be
agent
delivered to the
of the state оf Ten-
*2
717
(D.
by ap- 299,
parte Morgan
29 L. Ed.
Ex
544;
detained
Appellant
had
nessee.
C.)
298;
Reggel,
20 P.
Ex
114 U.
by
parte
Gov-
issued
under a warrant
pellee
request
642,
S.
250;
29
Ex
1148,
L.
a
of
of
ernor
the state
parte
(C. A.)
249,
Hart
63 F.
28 L. R.
Tennessee,
by the Governor of
accompanied^
801;
A.
parte Gradington,
Ex
89
Cr.
authentic
Tex.
warrant,
a
by copy of
a
R. 432, 231
781, 782; Compton
Mc-
S.
Tennessee, charging
W.
v.
of
Governor
Alabama,
605,
214
3,
U. S.
29
committed,
S.
having
with
Cline
1098;
885,16
Ann.
Hughеs,
Cas.
State v.
Maury, in the state
county of
11, 1931, in the
652,
824;
157 La.
102
Strauss,
So.
In re
in
Tennessee,
of murder
of
324,
197
25
535,
U. S.
49 L. Ed.
S. Ct.
degree.
first
774.
peti
1933,
filed a
August
appellant
5,
corpus in the crim
a writ of habeas
tion for
In the
Reilly, supra,
ease of Roberts v.
dis
county,
was
which writ
inal court of Cook
Supreme
speaking through Mr.
Court,
then
hearing. Appellant
after a
Matthews
Justice
said:
Supreme
error
sued out a writ of
therefore,
appear,
gov-
“It must
April
Supreme Court,
of Illinois. The
ernor of the state
such
to whom
a demand
People
reported in
3934,
21,
an
is presented,
lawfully comply
before he can
E.
210, 190 N.
Meyering, 356 Ill.
v.
ex rel.
First,
рerson
with
demanded
it —
judgment of the criminal
261, affirmed the
is substantially charged
against
with a crime
May
county. Thereafter, on
of
Cook
justice
of the
laws
state from whose
he is
a writ
petition for
16, 1934, aрpellant filed a
alleged
have fled, by
to
an
or
indictment
of
affidavit,
an
gov-
certified as authentic
and
writ
The
was
the United States.
ernor
making
of
state
demand; and,
that it
court found
hearing was
hеld.
a
second,
person
fugi-
demanded is a
exer
concluded not to
jurisdiction, but
justice
tive from the
of
state
the execu-
raised, for
issues
upon the
cise its
tive
of which makes the demand.
had been
entire matter
the reason that the
prerequisites
first of these
ques-
or
is
Supreme
of Illinois and
before the
law,
always
tion of
and
open,
suggested
matter
derly
procedure in
papers,
of
face
to
an
inquiry, on
an
to
might prosecute
application for
file
writ
States or
United
corpus.”
latter
certiorari
petition for
writ
discharged
writ was
Whereupon the
court.
The certification of the warrant
is not
to
respondent remanded
and the
a sufficient
with the
Ex
statute.
county.
sheriff Cook
(D.
parte Morgan
C.)
298,
20 P.
307; State
Covington
157
Hughes,
652,
La.
crea
proceedings arе
Extradition
102 So.
Hackett,
161 Tenn.
by the
controlled
law,
but are
tures of
S.W.(2d)
From the
602, 33
422.
latter
4,
States, article
United
Constitution
be seen
the time
the issu-
it will
lie-
5279, of the
2, and
sections 5278.
§
here,
ance of
662, 663), passed
(18USCA §§
Statutes
vised
ad-
there was an
60,
Ann.
Ill. e.
St.
Smith-Hurd
thereunder.
judication by
Supreme Court of that
60,
St.,
par.
e.
Peo
1,
Ill. Rev.
Cahill
§
was
that such
insufficient
166,
E.
Ill.
191 N.
318:
ple Meyering,
357
and invalid.
Baldwin,
174 N.
People
341
and
examination
51. An
involving
sub
The statute
Governors of Tennes
warrant shows that the
citizens,
rights of
its
stantial
comply
attempting
to
see
strictly
Ex parte
followed.
elements must
men
the section of the statute first
C.)
Morgan (D.
parte
20 F.
Ex
tioned.
A.)
28
R.
Hart
A.
(Rev.
5278
St.
USCA
§
The statute
by faithfully following
pro
Only
[18
requires
662]) clearly
is-
person
visions
be law
Governor to contain
sued
liberty
fully deprived of his
and extradited
found,
an
“a
indictment
or affidavit
state,
from
* * *
made,
charg-
before for the commission of
crime.
tried
person
having
ing
demanded with
fugitive
has a
not to be
therein,
mitted a crime
certified as authentic
the states in
imprisoned
dealt with
governor
safeguаrds provided by
disregard
state from
of those
person
charged has
whence the
so
fled.” Rob-
and statutes
the Constitution
Reilly,
Compton
Alabama,
erts v.
116 U. S.
States.
filed
petitioner might
16 Ann. Cas.
It
true, the
L. Ed.
S. Ct.
petitiоn
the Su
for writ of certiorari
review
Court of the
United States
Court,
Upon
hearing in the
Court.
the decision of the Illinois
denied
when the
was
However,
proceeding
was one institut
_
interesting discussion
*3
his con
ed
here and under
and counsel:
place
court
between the
stage
trol,
might
any
it
and he
abandon
certify
Governors
Both
“Mr. Mollison:
any
and avail himself of
but'they never
authentic,
that a warrant was
remedy.
other
(affidavit) or
complaint
as to the
In the view that we
of the substan-
take
certify one or
You must
indictment.
tial
defeet
of the Governor
as the
certify warrant
other. You cannоt
light
and in the
proceeding.
basis for an extradition
may
subsequent
that
proceedings,,
handling
I was
I know when
“The Court:
may
suggest
it
be well to
that
Attorney General’s
extradition matters
certified,
affidavit, which was not
furnishes
that, we
like
they came to us
Office, if
adjudi-
little or
upon
no evidence
which to
would send
by. We
get
them
wouldn’t let
probable
cate the
*
cause.
*
*
them back.
place
The murder
hearing before
had a
You
“The Court:
July
31, 1933,
years
On
almost two
might
Illinois. That
Supreme Court
thereafter,
the widow of
made-
the victim
quite
might
es-
considered, yet
not be
it
oath
“secretly
that
and in the
sential.
night
point,
сoncealed himself in
at a
ambush
the former
I submit that
Mollison:
“Mr.
George-
close
the road which he knew one
didn’t even
in their
court
pass,
Owen
day
would soon
and on said
n viewpoint of
matter from
consider the
place
at said
and while so concealed and'
Statutes,
States
with .the
shotgun
secreted did with a
deliberately,.
Tennessee
whether
5278 but rather
Section
George
shoot the sаid
Owen
complied with.'
laws were
George
passed by
said
Owen
point
said
of"
it, would
As I understand
Court:
I
ambush,” and killed the victim, etc.
There
them.
inclined to concur with
not be
been,
only
The facts sworn to could
have
any
certification
no
known
personally
if she was
affiant
plaint.”
present and
things
saw the
which she de-
n This
clearly
trial
colloquy
shows that the
scribed.
say
She does
so,
not
she-
nor does
requisition execut-
recognized that the
say that
ground
she has reasonable
to believe-
Tennessee and the
Governor of
ed
that
things
the accused did the
which she-
the Governor
warrant ordered
has sworn he did do. The inherent facts-
up-
showed
for the arrest
secretly
night
that
the accused
con-
a clear defect
face that there was
on their
cealed himself in ambush and from that am-
is,
that
one
documents;
that
both’Ofi the'
shotgun,
bush shot and killed Owen with
require-
material
very
probability
all
pres-
'show that in
she was not
documents, had been omitted.
in such
ments,
ent.
apparent upon the hear-
When this became
Congress
provi
The act of
no
makes
Court,'
ing in the District
sion
certification of
for the
a warrant
court- could
sound
requisition, but, in the absence of an indict
cqnclusion,
аnd that was
led to but
ment,
Congress permits
the act of
the cer
were
and warrant
defec-
Clearly
tification of an affidavit.
the affida
tive.
vit should contain facts from
the Gov
.fully,
delicacy recog-
appreciate the
We
there,
may
ernor of the
see that
entering
by the District Court in
nized
accused,
probable
cause to
believe that
order,
be at
that would
variance with
question.
committed the crime in
The affi
holding of the
satisfy-
davit' should
facts sufficient to
arising
out of the same facts as this
probable
cause exists..
However, the
court had received
one.
Liрpman
People,
175 Ill.
51 N. E.
granted
.writ,
partially
petition, had
jury
grand
if the
872. Of course
has re
(cid:127)
cause, and announced his
views
heard
an indictment in
docu
turned
effect that the
and warrant
prima
prоbable-
ment
facie evidence
Having gone
far,
insufficient.
we
cause.
persuaded that
should
are
the court
have en-
left,
was void before it
order
tered such an
as was warranted
Supreme-
under the
record
thé'state
before it.
Hackett, supra.
Tennessee.
executive surrender to
integrity
officials of another
scant
state one
of but
It can be the source
treаson,
felony,
other
who has fled
to the warrant
beyond the boundaries of the state wherein
asylum state.
he committed the crime.
re-
judgment of
Court is
provision nor
Neither the constitutional
with direc-
сause
versed
right upon
confers a
the accused.
petitioner.
tions to
deny
protection
Both
to him
of the state
hide
to which he has fled. He
behind
Judge (dissenting).
flight
the shield which his
created.
Lane, 265
of Goto
U.
Brown,
Urquhart v.
*4
Creecy,
Marbles
51 L.
30 S.
in granting
District Court was not warranted
corpus in
habeas
view the
exactly sim
of Illinois on an
Moyering, 356 Ill.
application, People
ilar
FOR
CO.
INSURANCES
PENNSYLVANIA
210,
United States Ex Rel. McCline v. Meyering
75 F.2d 716
7th Cir.1934Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.