United States v. Ruroede

Decision Date01 January 1914
PartiesUNITED STATES v. RUROEDE et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

H Snowden Marshall, U.S. Atty., of New York City.

Charles A. Oberwager, of New York City, for defendants.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.

The prisoner was arrested upon a complaint by the Acting Division Superintendent of the Department of Justice, which stated:

'On information and belief that on or about the 15th day of November, 1914, the above-named defendants * * * unlawfully, willfully, knowingly and feloniously did conspire to defraud the United States and to effect the object of the said conspiracy the defendant Carl Ruroede did on the 31st day of December, 1913, at the city of New York * * * have an interview with the defendant John Aucher against the peace of the United States and their dignity and contrary to the form of the statute of the United States in such case made and provided.
'The source of deponent's information and the grounds for his belief as to the facts herein are based upon an official investigation thereof to disclose the nature of which would be contrary to public policy and would be injurious to the government's case and the same will be presented in full at the hearing upon this complaint.'

The warrant issued by the commissioner for the arrest of Ruroede follows the exact language of the complaint in the description of the crime and the overt act.

The accused appeared before the commissioner and waived examination. He now comes before me on a writ of habeas corpus and seeks a discharge upon the ground that the complaint alleges no facts constituting a crime.

It is true that numerous cases hold that less precision is necessary upon an affidavit for commitment than in the case of an indictment; but nevertheless I think the rule is fundamental to the common law that a prisoner is entitled at all times to be apprised of the crime of which he is accused and also of the acts charged constituting that crime.

It is to be observed that section 1014 of the Revised Statutes, under which the proceeding for the arrest of Ruroede was taken, provides that the offender may 'by any commissioner * * * and agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state (referring to the state where the accused has been found), and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense.'

The late Judge Addison Brown, in the case of United States v. Greene (D.C.) 100 F. 941, following the opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis of the Supreme Court of the United States in the old case of United States v. Rundlett, 2 Curt. 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,208, held that it was the effect of section 1014 to assimilate all proceedings for holding accused prisoners to answer before a court of the United States to proceedings had for similar purposes by laws of the state where the proceedings might take place.

Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the state of New York, referring to proceedings before a committing magistrate, provides that the depositions upon which the warrant is issued 'must set forth the facts * * * tending to establish the commission of the crime and the guilt of the defendant.'

In the case of United States v. Greene, supra, Judge Brown held that where there had been an indictment in another district, and the United States had applied for a removal to that district under section 1014 of the Revised Statutes, there must be an independent proceeding before the commissioner in the jurisdiction from which the prisoner was sought to be removed for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was sufficient ground to commit and remove him. Judge Brown further held that an allegation, in the indictment in the foreign state (which paper was offered in evidence, as the sole basis for commitment), that the prisoner conspired to defraud the United States and as an overt act presented to a disbursing officer of the government fraudulent claims without any statement showing in what respect such claims were fraudulent, or any evidential facts or circumstances from which fraud could be found, was a defective allegation, and the court must discharge the accused. That case, where the indictment was treated as having the force of an affidavit before a committing magistrate, is a direct authority in this court for the position I have indicated, namely, that the overt act alleged must be connected with the crime in such a way as to indicate that a criminal act was performed.

As was said by Judge Andrews of the New York Court of Appeals in the extradition case of People ex rel. Lawrence v. Brady, 56 N.Y. 182, cited by the counsel for the accused:

'It is a reasonable rule, supported by obvious considerations of justice and policy, that when a surrender is sought upon proof, by affidavit, of a crime, the offense should be distinctly and plainly charged.'

As was said in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S.at page 557, 23 L.Ed. 588:

'In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Di Bella v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 23 novembre 1960
    ...ex rel. King v. Gokey, D.C.N.D.N.Y., 1929, 32 F.2d 793; * * * United States v. Pollack, D.C.N.J., 1946, 64 F.Supp. 554; United States v. Ruroede, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 220 F. 210." Recently the question of the sufficiency of a complaint to justify a warrant of arrest was considered in Giordenello v......
  • Wood v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 9 mars 1942
    ...attendance of witnesses, punish for contempt by fine and imprisonment, enforce its judgments similarly, etc. 14 Cf. United States v. Ruroede, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1915, 220 F. 210; People v. Moss, 1907, 187 N.Y. 410, 80 N.E. 383, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 528, 10 Ann.Cas. 309; Housel & Walser, Defending and ......
  • Importing Co v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 5 janvier 1931
    ... ... Ed. 495; Rice v. Ames, supra, page 374 of 180 U. S., 21 S. Ct. 406; Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 47 S. Ct. 248, 71 L. Ed. 520; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 558, 23 L. Ed. 588; United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 8 S. Ct. 571, 31 L. Ed. 516; United States v. Ruroede (D. C.) 220 F. 210, ... 212, 213. The warrant was improvidently issued and invalid on its face. It does not purport to authorize anyone other than the marshal and his deputies ...           The company is not mentioned in the complaint or warrant and is a stranger to the proceeding ... ...
  • Giordenello v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 17 mai 1957
    ...the other. Nothing to the contrary appears in the opinion of Judge Augustus N. Hand in the district court case of United States v. Ruroede, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 220 F. 210, 213. In that case there was no suggestion of the gist of the offense of which the defendant was charged, and the court proper......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT