Murray v. Burns

• Decision Date: 18 August 1965
• Docket Number: No. 4468,4468
• Citation: Murray v. Burns, 405 P.2d 309, 48 Haw. 508 (Haw. 1965)
• Parties: Madalyn MURRAY and William J. Murray v. John A. BURNS, Governor of Hawaii, and Dan Liu, Chief of Police of the City and County of Honolulu.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 309

405 P.2d 309

48 Haw. 508

Madalyn MURRAY and William J. Murray v. John A. BURNS, Governor of Hawaii, and Dan Liu, Chief of Police of the City and County of Honolulu.

No. 4468.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Aug. 18, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In habeas corpus proceedings to resist interstate extradition the scope of review in a court of the asylum state is limited to the determination of the identify of the named fugitive, whether he has been substantially charged in accordance with the laws of the demanding state and whether he was in the demanding state on the date of the offense charged.

2. Interstate extradition is governed primarily by the United States Constitution as implemented by federal statute and the courts of an asylum state are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing and applying the provisions thereof. U.S.Const. Art. IV, § 2 Cl. 2; 18 U.S.C. § 3182.

3. In habeas corpus proceedings contesting extradition, courts of the asylum state may not consider allegations of either past or prospective abuse and physical mistreatment in the demanding state, the matter being one for the courts of the demanding state or for the federal courts.

4. Motives of the authorities of the demanding state for prosecution or extradition of fugitive are not proper subjects of inquiry in court of asylum state in extradition habeas corpus proceeding.

5. In determining, in a proceeding for discharge on habeas corpus, whether a fugitive from justice has been lawfully demanded the courts of the asylum state cannot take into consideration the question of whether or not the fugitive will be accorded a fair trial in the demanding state.

6. In habeas corpus proceedings to resist interstate extradition, a claim that the indictment upon which the extradition was based was invalid because of the discriminatory exclusion in the demanding state of persons from the grand jury on a religious basis presents an issue that must be left for resolution in the demanding state and may not be considered by the court in the asylum state.

7. This court will not entertain an imputation that the courts of a sister state will disregard a ruling of the United States Supreme Court declaring a provision in that state's constitution to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States and unenforceable.

8. Extradition may not be resisted in habeas corpus proceedings in the asylum state on the contended basis that the fugitive, if extradited, will be deprived in the trial of the charges pending against him in the demanding state of due process and equal protection of the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by reason of provisions in the constitution of the demanding state which disqualify and exclude from service as judge, juror or witness any person who does not believe in the existence of God, and in the case of juror or witness, a God with certain specific attributes.

Hyman M. Greenstein and Don Jeffrey Gelber, Honolulu (Greenstein, Yamane & Cowan, Honolulu, of counsel), for petitioners-appellants.

Kenneth Saruwatari, Deputy Atty. Gen., (Bert T. Kobayashi, Atty. Gen., and Andrew S. O. Lee, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondents-appellees.

Before CASSIDY, WIRTZ, LEWIS and MIZUHA, JJ., and KING, Circuit Judge, Assigned by reason of illness of TSUKIYAMA, C. J.

CASSIDY, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the appellants, Madalyn Murray and her son William Murray, against the Governor of Hawaii and the Chief of Police of Honolulu. The order required the delivery of the two petitioners to named agents of Maryland for return to that State in accordance with the rendition warrants issued by the Governor of Hawaii in response to a requisition of the Governor of Maryland for extradition of Mrs. Murray and her son to answer several criminal charges of assaulting police officers and interfering with the performance of their duties, pending against each under indictments returned by a grand jury convened in the City of Baltimore.

Petitioners present as the basis of their appeal and grounds for reversal the following three points:

Point (1) 'Petitioners fled Maryland in fear of their lives after suffering irreparable harm and that if they are returned to that state, they will probably of the Maryland Constitution provides: of physical violence and possibly death before they could be afforded judicial relief.'

'Point (2) 'The indictments upon which the requisitions are predicated are constitutionally invalid because persons holding the same theological views as petitioners are mandatorily excluded from grand jury service by [Article 36 of] the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Maryland.' ¹

Point (3) 'Subjecting petitioners to trial in Maryland would inevitably deprive them of equal protection and due process of law as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, because persons holding the same theological views as petitioners are mandatorily excluded [by Articles 36 and 37 of the Declaration of Rights] from service as judge, juror, or witness.' ²

In the development of argument on Point (2), petitioners also assert, as they allege in their petition, that the indictments upon which the extradition is sought are 'void, invalid and unconstitutional in that they were issued by a Grand Jury (of the City of Baltimore, State of Maryland) from which persons holding the same religious views as petitioners were and are systematically excluded.'

The allegations of the petition pertinent to Point (1) in essence are: That because of their religious beliefs ³ and instigation of litigation respecting the separation of State and Church under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, ⁴ petitioners have been subjected to 'massive contempt, ridicule, hatred, vilification, affronts, scorn and oppression by the entire community of the City of Baltimore and throughout the entire State of Maryland; have been subjected to overwhelming abuse and criticism at the hands of all communication media throughout the State of Maryland so that at the present time there exists within the State of Maryland and particularly within the City of Baltimore virtually complete public hysterial directed against them and their efforts' and that by reason thereof they would not be able to obtain a fair trial in Baltimore nor anywhere within the State of Maryland on the charges pending against them upon which the extradition is based. They also allege that, 'Both petitioners are in fear of their lives if returned to Maryland,' that they have received hundreds of letters threatening their lives, and that petitioner, William Murray, has been assaulted and beaten by citizens of Baltimore hundreds of times because of his religious views. It is further alleged that the institution of the criminal charges against the petitioners was motivated by reason of their religious views in an effort to punish them therefor and to deter them from maintaining their pending suit to declare void tax exemptions granted religious organizations or future suits involving separation of Church and State.

As petitioners argue that if they are not ordered discharged by this court the cause should be remanded to permit them to make proof of their charges of past and prospective abuse and denial of constitutional rights in Maryland, we will briefly review the manner in which the proceedings were presented and conducted below.

The petitioners were arrested on the Governor's warrants at 9:00 a. m. on August 18, 1964. Their joint petition for habeas corpus was filed two minutes thereafter. Although no writ or order to show cause was obtained, the case was called in the trial court within 25 minutes after the filing of the petition. Counsel appeared with Madalyn Murray and William Murray and upon the call of the case announced he was ready for the petitioners. The deputy attorney general in charge of the respondents' case advised the court that counsel for the Murrays had agreed to stipulate that they were the persons named in the indictments and also that they were present in Maryland on June 20, 1964, the date alleged in the indictments. Counsel for the petitioners confirmed and agreed to such a stipulation. The deputy attorney general put in evidence, without objection, all of the documents underlying the issuance of the rendition warrants. Respondents then rested.

Neither petitioner was called to the stand and no evidence was presented on their behalf. Their counsel argued in opposition to the validity of the extradition process on the three grounds above stated. In respect to Point (1), which we are now considering, he elaborated to the extent of asserting that the two Murrays were involved in juvenile proceedings pertaining to William Murray and his 17-year-old bride in which they were found guilty of contempt in absentia with Mrs. Murray being sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and serve a jail term of one year and William Murray sentenced to six months in jail. Counsel reiterated that petitioners were, and if returned to Baltimore would be, in fear of their lives. He stressed that the atmosphere of Baltimore, from which he said he had recently returned, and the entire State of Maryland is so poisoned with hatred, venom, vindictiveness and oppression that it would be impossible for his clients to receive a fair trial in Baltimore or anywhere else in Maryland. He represented, in relation to the charge that the entire State of Maryland and its people were out to punish petitioners for their religious beliefs and to deter them from their present church-tax-separation suit, that shortly after Mrs. Murray arrived in Honolulu she received a notice that the fire insurance policy on her home had been cancelled and that two days later she received another letter from the bank holding the mortgage on the...