Grin v. Shine
Facts
Russia sought Grin's extradition under the extradition treaty with the United States, charging him with embezzlement. A district judge issued an arrest warrant on a sworn complaint, and the warrant was made returnable before Commissioner Heacock, who had been specially authorized to act in extradition matters the same day. The complaint alleged that while employed as a clerk, Grin received money in his capacity as clerk to deliver for his employer and then wrongfully, unlawfully, and feloniously appropriated it. The record also contained authenticated Russian papers, including an order by an examining magistrate directing that Grin be brought before the magistrate.
Issue
Whether alleged technical defects in the extradition proceedings required Grin's discharge on habeas corpus. More specifically, the Court considered objections to the commissioner's authority, the sufficiency of the complaint, the need for a foreign warrant or indictment, the authentication of foreign papers, the authority of the Russian consul to complain, and whether the facts showed embezzlement rather than larceny.
Rule
Extradition treaties must be faithfully observed without sacrificing legal or constitutional rights, but ordinary technicalities of criminal procedure apply only to a limited extent in extradition proceedings. Under Rev. Stat. § 5270, the essential statutory requirements are a complaint under oath, a warrant of arrest, a hearing on evidence of criminality, and certification of sufficient evidence to the Secretary of State; the complaint need only fairly apprise the accused of the crime charged. A foreign equivalent judicial document may satisfy a treaty requirement for a warrant, Congress may waive treaty formalities in its extradition legislation, and a prima facie showing of the charged extraditable offense is sufficient.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Perez files for habeas corpus, arguing the proceedings are void because the complaint was sworn before an officer other than the extradition commissioner who later heard the case. How should the court rule?