Riley v. Colpoys, 6632.
| Citation | 85 F.2d 282,66 App. DC 116 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 6632.,6632. |
| Parties | RILEY v. COLPOYS, U. S. Marshal. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Harry T. Whelan, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Leslie C. Garnett, U. S. Atty., and Allen J. Krouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and VAN ORSDEL, GRONER, and STEPHENS, Associate Justices.
An appeal in an extradition case from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing a petition for the same, and remanding the petitioner to be delivered to the agent of another state acting under a writ of requisition.
It appears that on June 30, 1930 in the city of Detroit, state of Michigan one Frank L. Holland filed with a magistrate, the judge of the recorder's court of that city, a complaint under oath charging that theretofore on the 9th day of September, 1928, in the city and state aforesaid, one Jerry Riley, now the appellant, together with certain other persons named in the complaint, did willfully, maliciously, and without lawful authority, forcibly and secretly confine and imprison one Charles Mattler against his will contrary to the form of the statute, to wit, section 15216, Compiled Laws of the state of Michigan. The affiant prayed that the accused parties should be apprehended and held to answer to the complaint and be dealt with according to law.
On the same day the magistrate aforesaid entered of record in his court the filing of the complaint by Holland and the fact that on examination of the complainant under oath it appeared that the offense charged therein had been committed as charged, and that there was just cause to suspect the accused persons to have been guilty thereof. Accordingly, a warrant was issued for their arrest.
The appellant Jerry Riley was not apprehended, and later, to wit, on December 5, 1935, a so-called "affidavit of flight" was filed with the Governor of Michigan by Holland, charging Riley with being a fugitive from justice and praying the Governor to issue a writ of requisition addressed to the proper authority of the District of Columbia, in which it was alleged Riley then was.
A writ of requisition was then issued by the Governor and forwarded to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia calling for the arrest and extradition of Riley as a fugitive from justice. Thereupon Riley was arrested within the District of Columbia and held under a warrant issued by the Chief Justice in compliance with the writ of requisition.
Afterwards, on December 6, 1935, Riley filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia praying for a writ of habeas corpus and a discharge from custody. He alleged that the warrant of arrest under which he was held was illegal and void for the reason that the affidavit in support of the complaint upon which the requisition was issued did not state facts sufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant because the affidavit made by affiant Holland in support of the complaint did not state facts within his personal knowledge, but upon information only.
Petitioner also claimed that the only identification made of him as a participant in the alleged crime was made by a convict serving a term of from twenty to forty years in the Michigan Penitentiary; and that a large reward had been offered for the conviction of the persons charged with the crime for which the petitioner was arrested. Trial was had upon appellant's petition by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and the petition was denied. The present appeal was then taken.
In our opinion the decision of the lower court was right.
Rev.St. § 5278, title 18, § 662, U.S.C. (18 U.S.C.A. § 662) provides as follows: "Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the State or Territory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Murphy
...324, 329, 25 S.Ct. 535, 536, 49 L.Ed. 774;Webb v. York, 8 Cir., 79 F. 616, 620;In re Strauss, 2 Cir., 126 F. 327, 330;Riley v. Colpoys, 66 App.D.C. 116, 85 F.2d 282, 283. Under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 276, § 14, as appearing in St.1937, c. 304, § 1, 4 it is required that the demand be ‘accompanie......
-
Martz, In re
...oath is sufficient to justify the issuance of a requisition. In re Strauss, 197 U.S. 324, 25 S.Ct. 535, 49 L.Ed 774.' Riley v. Colpoys, D.C.Cir., 85 F.2d 282, at page 283. Petitioner relies upon Videan v. State, 68 Idaho 269, 194 P.2d 615, 618. The opinion in that case was confined to a con......
-
Ex parte Morgan
...151 F.2d 799. 23 35 C.J.S., Extradition, § 14, pages 333-338; Raftery v. Bligh, 1 Cir., 1932, 55 F.2d 189, 194-198; Riley v. Colpoys, 1936, 66 App.D.C. 116, 85 F.2d 282; United State v. O'Brien, 7 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 217, 24 Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 117, 118, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572......
-
In re Murphy
... ... Webb v. York, 79 F. 616, 620 (C. C. A. 8). In re ... Strauss, 126 F. 327, 330(C. C. A. 2). Riley v. Colpoys, 85 ... F.2d 282, 283 (C. A. D. C.). Under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 276, ... Section 14, as ... ...