U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1957

Frank A. Gibson v. Carlton G. Beall

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 10, 1957 · Pee, Bazelon, Fahy, Burger

249 F.2d 489; 101 U.S. App. D.C. 397; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4022 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Joseph A. Eafferty, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. John W. Kern, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Fred L. McIntyre, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Johnette Moncrief v. Sam A. Anderson (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Rivera v. State (Ark. Ct. App. 1986)
Good v. Allain (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1986)
Galíndez v. Rodríguez Fortier (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1974)
State v. Phillips (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960)

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

PEE CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of appellant’s habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of an order extraditing him to Virginia. The point urged is that the District Court erred in considering Government evidence which was not before the Chief Judge of the District Court, acting as the chief executive, in the extradition proceeding. We think the point is not well taken.

The extradition order is based on summary executive action. There are no strict rules of evidence — it need only satisfy the extraditing officer — and there is no right to notice or hearing. Marbles v. Creecy, 1909, 215 U.S. 63, 68, 30 S.Ct 32, 54 L.Ed. 92; Munsey v. Clough, 1905, 196 U.S. 364, 372, 25 S.Ct. 282, 49 L.Ed. 515; Lee Won Sing v. Cottone, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 374, 379, 123 F.2d 169, 174. It is therefore left to the habeas corpus proceeding, in which the validity of the extradition proceeding is challenged, to provide the forum for both sides to present evidence on matters relevant to the validity of the extradition order, Johnson v. Matthews, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 378, 182 F.2d 677, *490 679, even though such evidence was not considered by the Chief Judge acting as the chief executive. We are aware of no authority limiting this proposition.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.