People Ex Rel. De Martini v. McLaughlin
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Ex Parte Paulson (Or. 1942)
- People ex rel. Bleecher v. Silberglitt (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- State Ex Rel. Sieloff v. Golz (Wis. 1977)
- Oliver Lee Kirkland and Elizabeth Smith v. Paul H. Preston and Luke Moore (D.C. Cir. 1967)
- State ex rel. Sowerwine v. Buchanan (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court 1964)
- In re Cooper (Cal. 1960)
- People ex rel. Nettles v. Police Commissioner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
- People ex rel. Lipshitz v. Bessenger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1947)
- Cassis v. Fair (W. Va. 1944)
- Ex Parte Davis (Mo. 1933)
- People ex rel. Kassin v. Sheriff of New York County (New York Supreme Court 1933)
- People Ex Rel. Hayes v. McLaughlin (N.Y. 1928)
- People ex rel. Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction (New York Supreme Court 1979)
- People ex rel. Mallin v. Wilson (New York Supreme Court 1974)
- People ex rel. Gondolfo v. Lindemann (New York County Courts 1969)
- People ex rel. Eiseman v. Sheriff of Oneida County (New York County Courts 1967)
- In re Kjeldsen (New York County Courts 1963)
- People v. Carney (New York County Courts 1962)
- People ex rel. Wheeler v. Murphy (New York Supreme Court 1962)
- People ex rel. Fuller v. Chaufty (New York County Courts 1961)
- People ex rel. Hodges v. Silberglitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
- People v. James (N.Y. 1958)
- People ex rel. Shurburt v. Noble (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1957)
- People ex rel. Namlik v. Wagner (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- People v. Belcher (N.Y. 1951)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.)
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; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387; Peoplex rel. Marshall v. Moore, 167 App. Div. 479; affd., 217 N. Y. 632). 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). 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; Davis’ Case, 122 Mass. 324, 327, 330). 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). 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 prin *420 cipal 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 to weigh them in their cumulative significance. We think the danger of a removal that is merely ignorant or wanton would be extended beyond precedent if affidavits so defective were to be accepted as a basis of extradition. Neither formally nor substantially is there a sufficient charge of crime.
The orders of the Appellate Division and of the Special Term should be reversed, and the discharge of the relator ordered.
Hiscock, Ch. J., Caedozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Ceane, Andeews and Lehman, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.