|
|
Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 (1917)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 (1917)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 245 U.S. 122, click here.
Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police No. 426 Argued October 10, 11, 1917 Decided November 5, 1917 245 U.S. 128
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Article IV, § 2, of the Constitution intends not to express the law of extradition as usually prevailing among independent nations, but to provide a summary executive proceeding whereby the states may promptly aid one another in bringing accused persons to trial. Its provisions, and the statutes passed in execution of them, should be construed liberally to effectuate this purpose.
A person indicted in due form for an offense against the laws of a state, who was present in that state at the time when the offense is so alleged to have been committed and subsequently leaves it, becomes, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws, a fugitive from justice, and upon the making of demand, accompanied by certified papers, as required by § 5278 of the Revised Statutes, the governor of the state in which he is found must cause him to be arrested and delivered for extradition into the custody of the authorized agent of the state whose laws are alleged to have been violated.
An accused person arrested in interstate extradition proceedings, who sues out habeas corpus to obtain his discharge on the ground that he is not a fugitive from justice, is not entitled to introduce evidence to prove that, after the date of the alleged offense, he was "usually and publicly resident" within the demanding state for a time sufficient to bar the prosecution under its limitation statutes. The statute of limitations is a defense. and must be asserted on the trial by the defendant in criminal cases, and this Court has frequently decided that matters of defense cannot be heard on habeas corpus to test the validity of an arrest in extradition, but must be heard and decided at the trial, by the courts of the demanding state.
Affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 (1917) in 245 U.S. 128 245 U.S. 129. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GJFZSZZ67G9S2FM.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 (1917), in 245 U.S. 128, page 245 U.S. 129. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GJFZSZZ67G9S2FM.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 (1917). cited in 1917, 245 U.S. 128, pp.245 U.S. 129. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GJFZSZZ67G9S2FM.
|