Leibel Pincusov Glucksman v. William Henkel
| Decision Date | 29 May 1911 |
| Docket Number | No. 944,944 |
| Citation | 55 L.Ed. 830,31 S.Ct. 704,221 U.S. 508 |
| Parties | LEIBEL PINCUSOV GLUCKSMAN, Appt., v. WILLIAM HENKEL, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles Dushkind for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 508-511 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert and Charles A. Conlon for appellees.
This is a proceeding by habeas corpus and certiorari to test the validity of a commitment of the appellant, Glucksman, for extradition to Russia. The circuit court dismissed the writs and remanded the prisoner, who thereupon appealed to this court. The complaint three times charges the forgery of the signature of one Tugendriach to bills of exchange for 100 roubles, and following each such charge alleges the fraudulent utterance of bills for the same sum to merchants named Bierenzweig, Traidenraich, and Selinsky, and obtaining goods for them of that value. This last is alleged to constitute the crime of uttering forged paper, although it is not expressly alleged that the bills fraudulently uttered were forged, as pretty plainly is meant. The ground of the appeal is that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant extradition on the charge.
It is common in extradition cases to attempt to bring to bear all the factitious niceties of a criminal trial at common law. But it is a waste of time. For while, of course, a man is not to be sent from the country merely upon demand or surmise, yet if there is presented, even in somewhat untechnical form according to our ideas, such reasonable ground to suppose him guilty as to make it proper that he should be tried, good faith to the demanding government requires his surrender. Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, 184, 47 L. ed. 130, 133, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 98, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 366. See Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 405, 52 L. ed. 1113, 1122, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714. We are bound by the existence of an extradition treaty to assume that the trial will be fair. The evidence in this case seems to us sufficient to require us to affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
According to the translation of the Russian documents accompanying the demand, Birenzweig, a merchant, 'deposed' on July 7, 1910, that the Lodz merchant, Leiba Glikeman, in the previous June, indorsed to him in payment for goods a note for 100 roubles, purporting to be drawn by a Tugendreich, who resides in Ozorkov; that a few days later he learned that Glikeman had left those parts, and that he was confirmed by Tugendreich in his suspicion that the note was spurious. Fraidenreich, a merchant, deposed to like effect, giving the name of the purported drawer of the note as Mosche-Leiba Tugendreich. And so did Zelinsky. Birenzweig and Fraidenreich produced their notes. Moschek-Leib Jakubov-Maerov Tugendreich deposed that he was a merchant in Ozorkov, that he never drew any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Nezirovic
...law on the criminal side, or of the niceties of common 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. 130.In principle, the point submitted was completely covered......
-
Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk
...This Court is "bound by the existence of an extradition treaty to assume that the trial will be fair." Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 512, 31 S.Ct. 704, 55 L.Ed. 830 (1911) (J. Holmes). As the Second Circuit held in Rosado v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 1179, 1193 (2d Even where the treaty fail......
-
United States of America v Lui Kin-Hong
...there for trial.In re Extradition of HowardECAS, 996 F.2d 1320, 1329 (1st Cir.1993) (emphasis added) (citing Glucks-man v. HenkelUNKUNK 221 U.S. 508, 512, 31 S.Ct. 704, 705, 55 L.Ed. 830 (1911); Neely v. Henkel (No. 1)UNKUNK, 180 U.S. 109, 123, 21 S.Ct. 302, 307, 45 L.Ed. 448 (1901)). In th......
-
Factor v. Laubenheimer
...317, 42 S.Ct. 469, 66 L.Ed. 956. See Pettit v. Walshe, 194 U.S. 205, 217—218, 24 S.Ct. 657, 48 L.Ed. 938; Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 513, 31 S.Ct. 704, 55 L.Ed. 830. The lower courts have adhered to the same rule. In re Muller, 17 Fed. Cas. page 975, No. 9,913; Cohn v. Jones (D.C.) ......
-
Reviewing Extraditions to Torture.
...664, 669-70 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Benson v. McMahon, 127 U.S. 457 (1888); Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109 (1901); and Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508 (1911)). For a more detailed critique of the Rule of Non-Inquiry and lower courts' expansive interpretation of the rule, see Parry, supra n......
-
Implementing the U.N. Torture Convention in U.S. extradition cases.
...`written submissions are a wholly unsatisfactory basis for decision."') (59.) See Ahmad, 910 F.2d at 1067 (comity); Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 512 (1911)(extradition treaty assumes the trial will be fair); Semmelman, at 1229-36 (policy considerations). But see Emami, 834 F.2d at 145......