People ex rel. Martini v. McLaughlin

• Decision Date: 22 October 1926
• Citation: 153 N.E. 853,243 N.Y. 417
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. DE MARTINI v. McLAUGHLIN, Police Commissioner.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

243 N.Y. 417

153 N.E. 853

PEOPLE ex rel. DE MARTINI

v.McLAUGHLIN, Police Commissioner.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 22, 1926.

Habeas corpus in extradition proceeding by the People, on the relation of Felix De Martini, against George V. McLaughlin, Police Commissioner of the City of New York. From an order of the Appellate Division (-- App. Div. --, 218 N. Y. S. --,) affirming orders dismissing the writs, relator, by permission, appeals.

Reversed, and relator ordered discharged.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.

John McKim Minton, Jr., and William L. F. Gardiner, both of New York City, for appellant.

Charles J. Dodd, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Harry S. Sullivan, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We think the affidavits submitted in support of the requisition fail to charge the appellant with the commission of a crime. People ex rel. Lawrence v. Brady, 56 N. Y. 182;People ex rel. Jourdan v. Donohue, 84 N. Y. 438;People ex rel. Corkran v. Hyatt, 172 N. Y. 176, 191, 195,64 N. E. 825, 60 L. R. A. 774, 92 Am. St. Rep. 706.

[1] When extradition is sought on the basis of an indictment, the forms of pleading established in the demanding state will be accepted as sufficient by the courts of the state in which the fugitive is seized. Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U. S. 52, 41 S. Ct. 222, 65 L. Ed. 497;Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 28 S. Ct. 714, 52 L. Ed. 1113;People ex rel. Marshall v. Moore, 167 App. Div. 479, 153 N. Y. S. 10, affirmed 217 N. Y. 632, 112 N. E. 1070. The finding of an indictment presupposes the testimony of witnesses before a grand jury, and is thus a safeguard against a removal that is ignorant or wanton. Matter of Strauss, 197 U. S. 324, 332, 25 S. Ct. 535, 49 L. Ed. 774. When extradition is sought on the basis of an affidavit, there is need for closer scrutiny. People ex rel. Lawrence v. Brady, supra; People ex rel. Himmelstein v. Baker, 137 App. Div. 824, 122 N. Y. S. 516; Davis' Case, 122 Mass. 324, 327, 330.

[3] The affidavits in this case, when read together, are seen to proceed upon information and belief, though one of them, if read alone, suggests a profession of knowledge that is erroneous and unwarranted. The charges are vague, indefinite, and general. They are made without specification of the sources of information or the grounds of belief. People ex rel. Livingston v. Wyatt, 186 N. Y. 383, 391,79 N. E. 330,10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 159,9 Ann. Cas. 972. If they are accepted at their face value, they still omit a basic element of guilt, in that the prisoner, prosecuted as an accessory after the fact, is not stated to have had knowledge of the guilt of the principal offenders. Wharton, Crim. Law (11th Ed.) § 282. There is room for argument that any one of these grounds of criticism, standing alone, would be inadequate. Our duty is...