States refusing extradition

[friedo]

In this classic column, Cecil sayeth,

Later Illinois officials will have to arrange to have you extradited back here for trial. Usually this is a formality, but there have been several well-publicized instances where one state refused to surrender a prisoner to another.

I know that a lot of those instances dealt with fugitive slaves escaping to northern states. What I want to know is, have there been any other high-profile cases involving states refusing to extradite, which were unrelated to slavery? Particularly anything in the 20th or 21st centuries? Because I don’t recall ever reading about anything like that happening in modern times.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I do not know of any specific cases where extradition has been refused between two US states. That said the below is confusing to me. On the one hand it seems to say a request for extradition must be honored and then it says the Supreme Court says a state has a right to refuse extradition. It’ll take a legal eagle around here to sort this one.

The U.S. Congress, pursuant to Article 4, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, has established a uniform law of extradition between the states, known as interstate rendition. This law provides that any person properly charged is subject to extradition regardless of the nature of the crime. Although the states normally comply with extradition demands, the Supreme Court has held that they have the right to refuse compliance.

SOURCE: http://www.answers.com/topic/extradition

[Whack-a-Mole]

Here’s a bit more commentary from another site on the issue although it only cites one case and that involving a slave which the OP already stipulated to.

The “shall . . . be delivered up” in this clause is not mandatory. Congress has provided no remedy should a State refuse to deliver, and there have been many instances of refusal where, in the opinion of the Governor, substantial justice did not require surrender. The Governor of Ohio refused (1860) to deliver to Kentucky a man charged with aiding the escape of a slave, and the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Act of Congress of 1793, passed under this clause, declaring it to be the duty of a State to deliver upon a sufficient showing, was not mandatory. Therefore, a Federal court would not issue a mandate to compel the governor to obey.

SOURCE: http://centre.telemanage.ca/links.nsf/articles/62B0FA8916F3A24585256B66004DBB74

Not to try and throw this into GD but this could be more relevant than we might think in the near future. Assume Roe v. Wade is tossed out by the Supreme Court in the near future and it is left to each state to determine abortion laws for themselves. Now imagine one state makes having an abortion a felony while another allows it and a woman from the state where it is illegal gets an abortion then flees to the state where they are legal. If ever you could see a situation where two states may come to blows over extradition I think this scenario would be right near the top of the list.

[Whack-a-Mole]

IANAL so not so good at deciphering these things but the case below seems to be a modern example of one state refusing to extradite someone per the OP. Near as I can tell the extradition ultimately went through (after an admittedly brief scan of the document linked below) but it is an example of what the OP is looking for to some extent.

"The Sheriff of the County of El Dorado is ordered to show cause before the Superior Court of El Dorado County with directions to that court to conduct hearings to determine if the penitentiary in which Arkansas seeks to confine petitioner is presently operated in conformance [446 U.S. 1307 , 1308] with the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and thereafter decide the petition on its merits.

“Pending final determination of this proceeding execution of the Governor’s Warrant of Extradition is stayed, and the Sheriff of the County of El Dorado is directed not to release petitioner into the custody of any agent of the State of Arkansas.”

SOURCE: PACILEO v. WALKER , 446 U.S. 1307 (1980)

[Whack-a-Mole]

Sorry for so many consecutive posts but if I am reading this correctly a state has very limited ability to refuse extradition.

The Extradition Act prohibits the California Supreme Court from refusing to permit extradition. The language, history, and subsequent construction of the Act establish that extradition is meant to be a summary procedure, and that the asylum State’s courts may do no more than ascertain whether (a) the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding [482 U.S. 400, 401] State; © the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) the petitioner is a fugitive.

SOURCE: http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/lloyd/projects/conlaw/ca_v_sup.htm

Note that this is from a modern case where extradition seems to have been refused and stayed that way (the link above is about that case as summarized below from the same link as above).

After the Governor of Louisiana formally notified the Governor of California of the charges and demanded that the Smolins be delivered up for trial, the California Superior Court granted them a writ of habeas corpus to block the extradition warrants against them. Taking judicial notice of the California custody orders, the court concluded that the Smolins were not substantially charged with crime under Louisiana law.

[Otto]

@friedo

What I want to know is, have there been any other high-profile cases involving states refusing to extradite, which were unrelated to slavery?

Robert Elliott Burns escaped twice from Georgia chain gangs, the second time ending up in New Jersey. New Jersey refused to extradite him. His story was published as the book “I am a Fugitive From a Georgia Chain Gang!” and was filmed as I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang.

I recall from reading and watching Helter Skelter that California had a difficult time extraditing Charles “Tex” Watson from Texas, because of the web of relationships between the judge, Watson’s attorney and the judge’s election committee.