268 U.S. 311 (1925), 60, Fernandez v. Phillips

• Citation: 268 U.S. 311, 45 S.Ct. 541, 69 L.Ed. 970
• Party Name: Fernandez v. Phillips
• Case Date: May 25, 1925
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Page 311

268 U.S. 311 (1925)

45 S.Ct. 541, 69 L.Ed. 970

Fernandez

v.

Phillips

No. 60

United States Supreme Court

May 25, 1925

Argued May 4, 1925

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Syllabus

1. In extradition proceedings, form is not to be insisted upon beyond the requirements of safety and justice, and the competent evidence establishing reasonable grounds for extradition is not necessarily evidence competent to convict. P. 312.

2. Habeas corpus cannot be used to rehear the findings of a magistrate in extradition, but only to inquire whether he had jurisdiction, whether the offense is within the treaty, and whether there was any evidence warranting the finding of reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty. P. 312.

3. Complaint in extradition filed by an Assistant United States Attorney, upon information, held sufficient where it appeared at the hearing that it was ordered by the Attorney General upon request of the Secretary of State based on a request and a record of judicial proceedings from the foreign country. P. 312.

4. Embezzlement or peculation of public funds by a public officer is a crime in Mexico within the extradition treaty. P. 313.

5. Warrant in extradition (if required) held good in habeas corpus, over the objection of misnomer of the accused, where the name in the warrant was one of two applied to him in the proceedings and he was identified by the testimony.

Affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court remanding the appellant in a habeas corpus case.

HOLMES, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant is charged with embezzlement of public funds while a public officer of the United States of Mexico.

Page 312

He was held for surrender to that government after a hearing before a district judge who found that there was probable cause to believe that he was guilty and that he was a fugitive from justice. Writs of habeas corpus and certiorari were issued by another district judge who came to the same conclusion and remanded the appellant. The case is brought here directly upon the somewhat strained assumption that the construction of our treaty with Mexico is involved. Being here, out of a natural anxiety to save the appellant if possible from being sent from New Hampshire to Mexico for trial, it has been presented as if this were the final stage and every technical detail were to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not the law. Form is not to be insisted upon beyond the requirements of safety and justice. Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 512. Competent evidence to establish reasonable grounds is not necessarily evidence competent to convict. See, e.g., Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511, 517; Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 317. 1 Wigmore, Evidence, 2d ed., § 4(6), p. 21.

The foregoing are general principles relating to extradition, but there are further limits to habeas corpus. That writ, as has been said very often, cannot take the place of a writ of error. It is not a means for rehearing what the magistrate already has decided. The alleged fugitive from justice has had his hearing, and habeas corpus is available only to...