Fernandez v. Phillips

Citation45 S.Ct. 541,268 U.S. 311,69 L.Ed. 970
Decision Date25 May 1925
Docket NumberNo. 680,680
PartiesFERNANDEZ v. PHILLIPS, U. S. Marshal for District of New Hampshire
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. John E. Benton, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Harold B. Elgar, of New York City, for appellee.

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 Mex ico. 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, 31 S. Ct. 704, 55 L. Ed. 830. Competent evidence to establish reasonable grounds is not necessarily evidence competent to convict. See, e. g., Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. S. 511, 517, 36 S. Ct. 634, 60 L. Ed. 1136; Collins v. Loisel, 259 U. S. 309, 317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. 956. 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 inquire whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offense charged is within the treaty and, by a somewhat liberal extension, whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty. Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457, 8 S. Ct. 1240, 32 L. Ed. 234; Re Luis Oteiza y Cortes, 136 U. S. 330, 10 S. Ct. 1031, 34 L. Ed. 464; Bryant v. United States, 167 U. S. 104, 105, 17 S. Ct. 744, 42 L. Ed. 94; Elias v. Ramirez, 215 U. S. 398, 406, 30 S. Ct. 131, 54 L. Ed. 253. We pass to the consideration of the specific objections urged.

It is objected in the first place that the complaint and warrant are defective. The complaint was filed by an As sistant District Attorney of the United States for the District of New Hampshire. It alleged that the complaint was informed 'through diplomatic channel' that the appellant was duly and legally charged by the United States of Mexico with the crime, and on behalf of that government prayed the arrest. Of course whatever form of words was used, the complaint necessarily was upon information, but as appeared at the hearing it was filed by order of the Attorney General, upon request of the Secretary of State, enclosing a request for the extradition from the Mexican Government and a copy of proceedings in a Mexican Court finding that the crime was duly proved against the appellant and ordering his arrest, many pages of evidence being appended. This was enough. Yordi v. Nolte, 215 U. S. 227, 231, 232, 30 S. Ct. 90, 54 L. Ed. 170; Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 371, 375, 376, 21 S. Ct. 406, 45 L. Ed. 577; Glucksman v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
327 cases
  • In re Robertson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 19 d5 Outubro d5 2012
    ...of the treaty which bar the extradition for any of the charges upon which extradition is sought. See generally Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925); Manta, 518 F.3d at 1140; Prasoprat, 421 F.3d at 1113; Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2000); Zanazanian v. United S......
  • In re Nezirovic
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 16 d1 Setembro d1 2013
    ...F.2d 504, 508 (7th Cir.1981); In re Rodriguez Ortiz, 444 F. Supp. 2d 876, 881-82(N.D. Ill. 2006) (citing Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S. Ct. 541, 69 L. Ed. 970 (1925); In re Extradition of Fulgencio Garcia, 188 F. Supp. 2d 921, 925 (N.D.Ill.2002)). Upon finding sufficient ev......
  • Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 30 d2 Abril d2 1985
    ...The proposition that the extradition warrant is the document to focus upon finds further support in Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 313, 45 S.Ct. 541, 543, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925): "The warrant is said to be bad because it names Mariano Viamonte, and not Mariano Viamonte Fernandez, the app......
  • United States of America v Lui Kin-Hong
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 10 d4 Abril d4 1997
    ...any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.Id. (quoting Fernandez v. Phillips,[7] 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S.Ct. 541, 542, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925)). The Government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to examine Lui's claim that the Trea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Due Process, the Sixth Amendment, and International Extradition
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 90, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...omitted)). 23. See Sacirbey v. Guccione, 589 F.3d 52, 62 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation mark omitted). 24. Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925); accord Sacirbey, 589 F.3d at 25. See Hoxha v. Levi, 465 F.3d 554, 560 n.9 (3d Cir. 2006); Inre Requested Extradition of Artt, 158 F......
  • Second Bites and International Extradition
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 44, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty." Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925). A final order in a habeas proceeding is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. §2253 by the United States Court of Appeals for the circu......
  • Matthew Reichstein, the Extradition of General Manuel Noriega: an Application of International Criminal and Humanitarian Law to Answer the Question, "if So, Where Should He Go?"
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory International Law Reviews No. 22-2, December 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...Opposition to the Defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, supra note 103, at 4-5. 108 Id. at 3-4 (citing Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925); Afanasjev v. Hurlburt, 418 F.3d 1159, 1163 (11th Cir. 2005); Martin v. Warden, 993 F.2d 824, 828 (11th Cir. 1993)). All three cri......

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