187 U.S. 181 (1902), 303, Grin v. Shine

Docket NºNo. 303
Citation187 U.S. 181, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130
Party NameGrin v. Shine
Case DateDecember 01, 1902
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 181

187 U.S. 181 (1902)

23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130




No. 303

United States Supreme Court

December 1, 1902

Submitted November 3, 1902




Extradition treaties should be faithfully observed and interpreted with a view to fulfilling our just obligations to other powers, without sacrificing the legal or constitutional rights of the accused. Technical noncompliance with formalities of criminal procedure should not be allowed to stand in the way of the discharge of the international obligations of this government.

1. Section 5270 of the Revised Statutes is satisfied if the commissioner before whom the warrant requires the person arrested to appear has been specifically authorized to act in extradition proceedings on the same day the warrant is issued, and the oath to the complaint need not necessarily be taken before a commissioner specifically authorized to act in extradition proceedings, but the judge issuing the warrant may act upon a complaint sworn to before a United States commissioner authorized generally to take affidavits.

2. The district judge may make the warrant returnable directly before a commissioner who, upon the same day, is specially designated to act in extradition proceedings.

3. Under a statute punishing embezzlement of property which has come under the control or care of the defendant by virtue of his employment as clerk, agent, or servant, it is sufficient to allege that the defendant, while so employed, embezzled money entrusted to and received by him in his capacity as clerk, etc.

A complaint in extradition need not set forth the crime with the particularity of an indictment. It is sufficient if it fairly apprises the party of the crime with which he is charged.

4. A complaint is not defective because it does not use the word "fraudulently" in referring to the defendant's action in embezzling the money entrusted to him. The word "embezzle" implies a fraudulent intent; the addition of the word "fraudulently" would be mere surplusage.

5. An order made by an officer in Russia purporting to act as an examining magistrate, and reciting the fact of defendant's flight and ordering him to be brought before an examining magistrate, which is evidently designed to secure the apprehension of the accused and his production before an examining magistrate, although not in the form of a warrant of arrest as used in this country, is a sufficient compliance with the provision of the treaty which requires an authenticated copy of the warrant of arrest

Page 182

or of some other equivalent judicial document issued by a judge or magistrate of the demanding government. Furthermore, Congress not having required by section 5270 the production of a warrant of arrest by the foreign magistrate, has waived that requirement of the treaty.

6. The sufficiency of evidence properly certified under section 5 of the Act of August 3, 1882, 22 Stat. 216, to establish the criminality of the accused for the purposes of extradition cannot be reviewed upon habeas corpus (following In re Oteiza, 136 U.S. 330).

7. Where depositions and other documents in the record are certified by the proper officer, as required by the Act of August 3, except that the certificate says that the papers "are properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received and admitted as evidence for similar purposes by tribunals of Russia," the language being a literal conformation to the statute, adding only the words italicized, the introduction of those words does not invalidate the certificate.

8. Under section 5270, the complaint may be made by any person acting under authority of the demanding government having knowledge of the facts. The accused, however, can only be surrendered upon the requisition made by the foreign government through the diplomatic agent or superior consular officer, and this may be made entirely independently of the proceeding before the magistrate, and the certificate of the Secretary of State that such demand has been made does not have to be produced before the warrant can be issued.

9. Where a cheque is delivered to a clerk with instructions to draw money from the bank, take it to the railway and forward it to another city, he obtains possession of both the cheque and the money honestly and with the consent of his principal, and if he subsequently converts the money to his use, it is prima facie a case of embezzlement, and not of larceny, within the definitions of both crimes under the laws of California, and while there might be a question for a jury in a Russian court to pass on, it is sufficient in proceedings here if a prima facie case of embezzlement is made out.

This was an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus sued out by Griffin and remanding him to the custody of the defendant, marshal for the Northern District of California, who held him under a mittimus issued by a commissioner in certain proceedings under a treaty with the Emperor of Russia for the extradition of criminals proclaimed June 5, 1893. 28 Stat. 1071.

These proceedings were begun by a complaint of Paul Kosakevitch, Russian consul at the City of San Francisco, stating in substance that on March 6, 1901, Griffin, a Cossack of the Don

Page 183

and a Russian subject, in the employment of the firm of E. L. Zeefo & Co., doing business in the City of Rostov, on the River Don, in the Empire of Russia, embezzled the sum of 25,000 roubles, entrusted to and received by him in his capacity as "clerk" of such firm, and that he had subsequently absconded and taken refuge in San Francisco; that he had been indicted in Russia for the embezzlement of the money, and that a mandate had been issued by the Department of State in Washington directing the necessary proceedings to be had in pursuance of the laws of the United States in order that the evidence of his criminality might be heard and considered. The complaint was sworn to before George E. Morse, United States commissioner, with the usual power to take affidavits, but not specially authorized by any court of the United States to take proceedings in extradition; that, upon such complaint, the judge of the District Court for the Northern District of California issued a warrant of arrest, and directed that petitioner, when arrested, should be brought before E. H. Heacock, Esquire, United States commissioner, for examination and further proceedings; that at the time such warrant was issued, Heacock was not authorized to take jurisdiction of extradition proceedings, and that the evidence before him failed to show that the petitioner had committed the crime of embezzlement.

Several other defects in the extradition proceedings are set forth in the petition, and, so far as they are deemed material, appear hereafter in the opinion.

Upon a hearing upon this petition, the circuit court made an order remanding the petitioner to the custody of the marshal, and an appeal was thereupon taken to this Court. In re Griffin, 112 F. 790.

BROWN, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Page 184

We shall only notice such alleged defects in the extradition proceedings as are pressed upon our attention in the briefs of counsel. While these defects are of a technical character, they are certainly entitled to respectful and deliberate consideration. Good faith toward foreign powers, with which we have entered into treaties of extradition does not require us to surrender persons charged with crime in violation of those well settled principles of criminal procedure which from time immemorial have characterized Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Persons charged with crime in foreign countries who have taken refuge here are entitled to the same defenses as others accused of crime within our own jurisdiction.

We are not prepared, however, to yield our assent to the suggestion that treaties [23 S.Ct. 100] of extradition are invasions of the right of political habitation within our territory, or that every intendment in proceedings to carry out these treaties shall be in favor of the party accused. Such treaties are, rather, exceptions to the general right of political asylum, and an extension of our immigration laws prohibiting the introduction of persons convicted of crimes, 18 Stat. 477, by providing for their deportation and return to their own country, even before conviction, when their surrender is demanded in the interests of public justice. There is such a general acknowledgment of the necessity of such treaties that of late, and since the facilities for the escape of criminals have so greatly increased, most civilized powers have entered into conventions for the mutual surrender of persons charged with the most serious nonpolitical crimes. These treaties should be faithfully observed, and interpreted with a view to fulfill our just obligations to other powers, without sacrificing the legal or constitutional rights of the accused.

In the construction and carrying out of such treaties, the ordinary technicalities of criminal proceedings are applicable only to a limited extent. Foreign powers are not expected to be versed in the niceties of our criminal laws, and proceedings for a surrender are not such as put in issue the life or liberty of the accused. They simply demand of him that he shall do what all good citizens are required, and ought to be willing to

Page 185

do, viz., submit themselves to the laws of their country. Care should doubtless be taken that the treaty be not made a pretext for collecting private debts, wreaking individual malice, or forcing the surrender of political offenders; but where the proceeding is manifestly taken in good faith, a technical noncompliance with some formality of criminal procedure should not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
151 practice notes
  • 857 F.2d 137 (3rd Cir. 1988), 87-5292, United States v. Zauber
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 31 Agosto 1988
    ...is " 'the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's care by another.' " Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189, 23 S.Ct. 98, 102, 47 L.Ed. 130 Carpenter, 108 S.Ct. at 321. In Carpenter the petitioner appropriated the information for his own use. ......
  • 166 F. 921 (W.D.Tex. 1909), Ex parte Yordi
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • 5 Febrero 1909
    ...15 F. 506; Ex parte Sternaman (D.C.) 77 F. 595; Sternaman v. Peck, 80 F. 883, 26 C.C.A. 214; In re Grin (C.C.) 112 F. 790; Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 183, 23 Sup.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130. Referring to the precision required in the preparation of a complaint, Judge Coxe used the following language ......
  • 48 F.3d 96 (2nd Cir. 1995), 253, United States v. Altman
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 16 Febrero 1995
    ...is " 'the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's care by another.' " Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 [23 S.Ct. 98, 101, 47 L.Ed. 130] (1902). Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 27, 108 S.Ct. 316, 321, 98 L.Ed.2d 275 (1987). Clearl......
  • 5 F.3d 598 (2nd Cir. 1993), 1996, Austin v. Healey
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 21 Septiembre 1993
    ...contemplated by section 3184), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2844, 115 L.Ed.2d 1013 (1991). Cf. Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 186, 23 S.Ct. 98, 100, 47 L.Ed. 130 (1902) ("we are not bound to import words into [section 3184] which are not found there"). Nor does the Fede......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
147 cases
  • 98 P.2d 354 (Utah 1940), 6045, State v. Dubois
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court of Utah
    • 22 Enero 1940
    ...87 Am. St. Rep. 35-47; 15 Ann. Cas. 443; 18 Am. Jur. 578, 580; State v. Karri, 51 Mont. 157, 149 P. 956, L.R.A. 1916F, 90; Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130. And it was between the Commission and the appellant that the trust or fiduciary relationship existed; it was his......
  • In re Extradition of Martinelli Berrocal, 083117 FLSDC, 17-22197-Civ-TORRES
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 31 Agosto 2017
    ...to opine on, or worse challenge, a foreign government's interpretation of its own law. See, e.g., Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 190 (1902) (“[I]t can hardly be expected of us that we should become conversant with the criminal laws of Russia, or with the forms of ......
  • 854 F.Supp. 165 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), CV 94-1525, Hilario v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 6 Junio 1994
    ..."will not undertake to construe a treaty in a manner inconsistent with a subsequent federal statute"). Thus, in Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130 (1902), the Supreme Court held that, although the extradition treaty between the United States and Russia seemed t......
  • In re of Extradition of Nezirovic, 091613 VAWDC, 7:12MC39
    • United States
    • United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • 16 Septiembre 2013
    ...law on the criminal side [sic], is quite beside the mark. Glucksman v. Henkel 221 U.S. 508, 31 S.Ct. 704, 55 L.Ed. 830; Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. In principle, the point submitted was completely covered by In re De Giacomo, 12 Blatch. 391, Fed. Cas. No. 3747, where ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Rounding the peg to fit the hole: a proposed regulatory reform of the misappropriation theory.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 144 Nbr. 3, January 1996
    • 1 Enero 1996
    ...is the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's care by another." (quoting Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (1902))). (341) Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 228 (1980) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts [section] 551(2)(a) (1976)).......
  • Title 18 Insider Trading.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 Nbr. 7, May 2021
    • 1 Mayo 2021
    ...on health-care fraud. I do not address these, except for honest-services fraud as discussed infra Section II.D.2. (19.) See Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (20.) See Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1987). (21.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 1341 (2018). (22.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 1343......
  • Reflections on Reves v. Ernst & Young: its meaning and impact on substantive, accessory, aiding abetting and conspiracy liability under RICO.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 33 Nbr. 5, January 1996
    • 1 Enero 1996
    ...U.S. 349, 353 (1919). (20.) Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27; Fomnax, Inc. v. Hostert, 841 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1988). (21.) Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (1902). (22.) Fasulo v. United States, 272 U.S. 620, 628 (1926). (23.) Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27 (quoting McNally, 483 U.S. at 358 (quot......
  • Second Circuit stands firm on rule of non-inquiry during extradition proceedings by assigning burden of proof to petitioner.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Transnational Law Review Vol. 36 Nbr. 1, January 2013
    • 1 Enero 2013
    ...re Extradition of Singh, 123 F.R.D. 127, 137 (D.N.J. 1987) (outlining benefits of non-inquiry in foreign laws); See e.g., Grin v. State, 187 U.S. 181 (1902); Melia v. United States, 667 F.2d 300, 302 (2d Cir. 1981); United States ex rel. Petrushansky v. Marasco, 325 F.2d 562 (2d Cir. 1963) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT