Stop offering your ideas as fodder for GQ answers.
“I can’t get a fair trial in state A,” is not a permissible reason to oppose interstate extradition.
Yes. Which has nothing to do with the OP, but it sure is interesting.
Also true. But pretty damn rare, since the requirements for a successful extradition are simply the showing that the governor of the state that wants you has certified that you’re under indictment or information or a fugitive in his state. The only way to win an extradition hearing is to show that the governor HASN’T certified that status, or that you are not the person named in the governor’s petition.
Random. If you have a problem, take it to the appropriate forum. You can say that here, but you need to make it less confrontational. Civility, man!
samclem GQ moderator
Oh, yeah, and there is this:
It would be an interesting case, I can’t find precedent, and I’m not sure one exists, but you can’t argue that it doesn’t make sense at all. Since the question is about law, and US is mostly under common and codified law which is subject to judicial interpretation.
For example, Virginia Law allows you (according to this
) use “cruel and unusual punishment” as a reason to avoid extradition. Now, that shows that a potential for violation of your civil rights under the Bill of Rights in the target state can prevent extradition, a good defense attorney might at least attempt the “fair trial” defense.
Laws aren’t fixed y’know.
No. It’s part of the constitution and there is a federal statute on the issue. The state cannot entertain an argument like that.
Can you cite the federal statute in question that allows the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” defense but disallows “Unfair Trial” defense, as per the Virginia Extradition Guide I cited above (I know it’s not law, but it’s a government document, would they really make such a glaring error)? Because I do not believe that is in the constitution.
A couple of questions for American criminal lawyers or one-time American criminal lawyers (but not for Groman): do states give extra credit for time served prior to conviction, and if so, would time spent in state B fighting extradition to state A be so credited?
Even if Indiana had jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of Pennsylvania criminal law, these provisions both seem to require that the jury be drawn from Pennsylvania, which would be very complicated, to say the least.
Theoretically, couldn’t a sympathetic governor refuse to let you be extradited?
groman, I don’t fully understand your argument (and I’ve skimmed the 158 page pdf you link to), but permit me, if I may.
“I can’t get a fair trial in State A” won’t work because it isn’t State B’s decision to make. (On preview, I adopt Gfactor’s citations here.) The federal law on point (and what you cited to from Virginia doesn’t change the analysis) says that if the requisites for extradition are met, the fugitive will be extradited.
Your concern – about lack of a fair trial – could then be raised by the fugitive in State A. If you will recall, Scott Peterson raised that as an issue in his trial, and his trial was in fact moved out of Modesto, where the crime occurred, and to San Jose. The San Francisco lawyers whose dogs killed a woman (their names escape me) also claimed that they could not get a fair trial in SF and sought a change of venue. But all of that would be decided pursuant to State A’s laws by the State A judge.
Your second point, that “cruel and unusual punishment” could be a basis to avoid extradition from State A to State B is also problematic. Here is the section you cited (page 39 from the pdf):
Emphasis added. As you see, the manual you cite explicitly rejects your first argument. As to the second, you need to understand that “cruel and unusual punishment” is pretty severe – the death penalty currently is not considered cruel and unusual punishment. So the mere fact that a fugitive might have to face death won’t get you there – even if the law permitted him to make that argument. And that’s the other issue. The section is talking about seeking habeas relief; it’s not about extradition per se. A habeas petition is different from extradition, as the manual you cite makes plain.
Ok. I’ve already shown you the part of the Constitution that rules this out, are you suggesting that Virginia can amend the Constitution? Are you suggesting that Congress can do so by passing a statute? You are sezing on a single sentence in a manual, which is not law, and trying to read it like a statute. And that single sentence says not that the argument would be grounds for refusal of extradition, but instead that it might be grounds for habeas corpus. That’s not gonna work.
It is unlikely that the cruel and unusual punishment theory would fly because:
-
Assuming the defendant has not been convicted yet (as in all of your hypotheticals), he might be acquitted, which would moot the issue. So the issue is not ripe.
-
The defendant would have access to federal courts in the prosecuting state, and cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional, so the federal courts would guarantee that right irrespective of the state of prosecution.
By they way, where in Virginia law (aside from the single sentence to which you have alluded) do we find th cruel and unusual exception to extradition?
::High-five to **Campion **on preview::
Basically my example is an extreme hypothetical. Suppose the very nature of State A prevents the fugitive from getting a fair trial there. Now, internal issues of State A and it’s statehood and all fun stuff like that are not really of interest to an extradition hearing in state B, however, if it is obvious that for example, upon return to state A the fugitive will be summarily executed without a trial. Clearly unconstitutional for state A, but nonetheless the case in this hypothetical. Then, clearly “fair trial” SHOULD be a valid defense. I’d still like to see something that says it would be somehow against the law for a court to even entertain such a defense.
After all any court decision that violates your constitutional rights is unconstitutional, but I don’t know if you can appeal extradition hearings all the way to the supremes.
If anybody is interested, here’s an attempted 8th amendment defense to extradition that failed. It also states that
which to me sounds like it would be sufficient to prove that if “constitutional defects” in state A’s legal system would in of themselves prevent “claims as to constitutional defects” as they pertain to this particular case. Now, could a courtrelease you to another jurisdiction if that jurisdiction itself was violating the 6th amendment and would not allow you to challenge it from the inside?
groman. While I warned Random about his tone in that one response to your inane posts in this thread, I’m now warning you.
If you try to come in and hijack a General Question thread with your personal opinions, and after being told by posters with legal qualifications that your posts are nothing but your unfounded opinions, and you continue your line of drivel, then I’ll issue you a formal warning.
If you want to debate your opinions, take them to GD. If you merely wish to offer them, take them to IMHO. But keep them OUT of GQ.
I hope this is clear.
samclem GQ moderator
groman. I want to apologize for calling your statements “drivel.” That was impolite on my part. But I’m tired of people(not just you) offering their opinions in General Questions. I know it will never change, but let’s try to do the research before you offer your first post.
samclem GQ moderator