New Mexico v. Reed
| Decision Date | 08 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | 971217 |
| Citation | 524 U.S. 151,118 S.Ct. 1860,141 L.Ed.2d 131 |
| Parties | NEW MEXICO, ex rel. Manuel ORTIZ, v. Timothy REED |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Respondent, sentenced to a term of 25 years upon conviction of armed robbery and theft of drugs, was paroled from the Ohio correctional system in 1992. In the following year Ohio prison officials told respondent they planned to revoke his parole status. Before the scheduled date of his meeting with his parole officer, respondent fled from Ohio to New Mexico.
Ohio sought extradition and the Governor of New Mexico issued a warrant directing the extradition of respondent. He was arrested in October 1994, and later that year sought a writ of habeas corpus from the New Mexico State District Court. He claimed he was not a "fugitive'' for purposes of extradition because he fled under duress, believing that Ohio authorities intended to revoke his parole without due process and to cause him physical harm if he were returned to an Ohio prison. In January 1995, the New Mexico trial court ruled in favor of respondent and directed his release from custody. The State appealed this order, and in September 1997 the Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the grant of habeas corpus. 124 N.M. 129, 947 P.2d 86 (1997). The State has petitioned for certiorari from that decision.
Article IV of the United States Constitution provides that:
"A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the Executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.'' Art. IV, §2, cl. 2.
The Extradition Act, 18 U.S.C. §3182, provides the procedures by which this constitutional command is carried out.
In Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), we said:
' Id., at 289, 99 S.Ct., at 535.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico agreed that the first three requirements had been met, but decided that respondent was not a "fugitive'' from justice; in the words of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, he was a "refugee from injustice.'' 124 N.M., at 146, 947 P.2d, at 103. That court held that respondent fled Ohio because of fear that his parole would be revoked without due process, and that he would be thereafter returned to prison where he faced the threat of bodily injury. This "duress'' negated his status as a fugitive under Article IV.
These are serious charges, unrebutted by any evidence at the hearing in the state trial court. It may be noted, however, that the State of Ohio was not a party at that hearing, and the State of New Mexico which was defending the Governor's action is at a considerable disadvantage in producing testimony, even in affidavit form, of occurrences in the State of Ohio. Very likely Ohio was aware of our statement in Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 89-90, 73 S.Ct. 139, 140-141, 97 L.Ed. 114 (1952), that the "scheme of interstate rendition, as set forth in both the Constitution and the statutes which Congress has enacted to implement the Constitution, . . . do[es] not contemplate an appearance by [the demanding state] in respondent's asylum to defend against the claimed abuses of its prison system.''
We accept, of course, the determination of the Supreme Court of New Mexico that respondent's testimony was credible, but this is simply not the kind of issue that may be tried in the asylum State. In case after case we have held that claims relating to what actually happened in the demanding State, the law of the demanding State, and what may be expected to happen in the demanding State when the fugitive returns, are issues that must be tried in the courts of that State, and not in those of the asylum State. Drew v. Thaw, 235 U.S. 432, 35 S.Ct. 137, 59 L.Ed. 302 (1914); Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 73 S.Ct. 139, 97 L.Ed. 114 (1952); Michigan v. Doran, supra, Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U.S. 86, 101 S.Ct. 308, 66 L.Ed.2d 304 (1980). As we said in Pacileo:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. Mumford
...to all of Burton's constitutional claims by stating that Delaware is the appropriate forum to hear and resolve these claims. Reed, 524 U.S. at 152–53, 118 S.Ct. 1860.In cases concerning similar federal and state constitutional provisions, the Court of Appeals hasoften commented that such st......
-
Clark v. Commissioner of Correction
...to the executive officers or the courts of the asylum State." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 524 U.S. 151, 154, 118 S.Ct. 1860, 141 L.Ed.2d 131 (1998); see also 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Procedure (14th Ed. 2005) § 6:12, p. 6-78 ("the right to extradition......
-
Morris v. Brandenburg, Docket No. 33,630
..."[o]urcourts have not fully defined the scope of this constitutional provision"), rev'd sub nom. on other grounds by N.M. ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 524 U.S. 151 (1998). The Oxford English Dictionary defines "life" as "[t]he condition or attribute of living or being alive; animate existence. Op......
-
Morris v. Brandenburg, 33,630
...have not fully defined the scope of this constitutionalPage 43provision"), rev'd sub nom. on other grounds by N.M. ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 524 U.S. 151 (1998). The Oxford English Dictionary defines "life" as "[t]he condition or attribute of living or being alive; animate existence. Opposed t......
-
Extradition
...proceedings are meant to be summary, reserving defenses to trial in the requesting state. [ See New Mexico ex rel Ortiz v. Reed, 524 U.S. 151, 153 (1998) (State court could not refuse extradition on the grounds that the defendant fled under duress based on a well-founded belief that the req......
-
What Amici Curiae Can and Cannot Do With Amicus Briefs
...argument). [20] See Baron, “The Civil Amicus Brief,” 13 App. Advocate 4, 8 (2000). [21] See, e.g., New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, 524 U.S. 151, 154 (1998) (amicus brief filed by 40 states furnished “practical reasons” supporting the Court’s decision that the Extradition Clause prevailed ......