89 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1937), 8313, Barrow v. Owen
|Citation:||89 F.2d 476|
|Party Name:||BARROW v. OWEN.|
|Case Date:||April 14, 1937|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
C. L. Tubb, of Aberdeen, Miss., for appellant.
Lester G. Fant, U.S. Atty., of Holly Springs, Miss., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, held under a fugitive complaint, sued out a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release from custody, and prevent his removal to Louisiana to stand trial for violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408e, the fugitive felon act. His claim was that his arrest, detention, and proposed removal were without authority of law, in that (a) he was not guilty of the charge of rape made against him in the state court; (b) that he did not leave Louisiana to avoid prosecution for that offense; and (c) that the fugitive felon act is unconstitutional, null, and void.
The marshal's return to the writ was that appellant had been taken into his custody and was being held (1) by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by the United States Commissioner, in proceedings to remove the appellant to the Eastern District of Louisiana, to answer a charge of violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408e there pending against him, and (2) by virtue of a complaint charging him with a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 753h, the escape act. This was the evidence offered on the hearing: The complaint charging violation of the escape act, copy of the complaint filed before the United States Commissioner for the Eastern District of Louisiana, charging that in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408e, appellant did unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully move and travel from the parish of Jefferson, state of Louisiana, to Columbus, state of Mississippi, to avoid prosecution for a felony, to wit, rape; copies of the state court proceedings against appellant, including the indictment for rape, filed August 2, 1935, the appearance bond and judgment of forfeiture on the bond, November 6, 1935.
Appellant admitted his identity, and that the indictment had been returned and the complaint filed against him. He denied that he was guilty of the state offense, and of both of the federal offenses charged against him.
As to the complaint charging violation of the escape act, he specifically and abundantly established, and the court found that it was unwarranted. As to the state offense charged against...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP