Interstate_Rendition

Interstate rendition Interstate Rendition also called Extradition is defined in Article 4 Section 2 Clause 2 it states “A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime”(Wikipedia) It requires the state to return a fugitive from justice who flees from a state where a crime was committed and enters another state, the constitution provides that the governor returns the fugitive to the state that has jurisdiction of the crime. Only chief executive officer to chief executive officer, so from governor to governor can request rendition. It is not a mandatory process, if a governor is asked to return a fugitive he can say no. The meaning of the extradition or Interstate Rendition clause was first really tested in the case of Kentucky v. Dennison. The case was that in 1859 a man named Willis Lago from Ohio who was wanted in Kentucky for helping a slave girl named Charlette escape. “Kentucky indicted Lago for theft and Governor Beriah Magoffin of Kentucky asked Ohio Governor Salmon P. Chase to extradite Lago. Chase refused to comply, arguing that Lago had not committed a crime recognized by Ohio law. Magoffin waited until Chase left office in 1860 and renewed the requisition with the new Ohio governor, William Dennison, who also refused to comply.” (Wikipedia) Magoffin then issued a writ of mandamus to force Dennison to act. A writ of Mandamus means "we command" in Latin it is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly". Magoffin sued in the United States Supreme Court, under the court's original jurisdiction for cases between two states. The Supreme Court held that the federal courts may not compel state governors to surrender fugitives through the issue of writs of mandamus. Basically in this case, the court ruled that, while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through a writ of mandamus to do so. This case presented Chief Justice Roger B. Taney with a major problem. Taney was proslavery and very antagonistic toward the North, and had no desire to settle all constitutional issues surrounding slavery in favor of the South. But Taney was hesitant to rule that the Supreme Court or the federal government might have the power to force state governors to act. “Taney ruled that the Court had no power to coerce a state to comply with its constitutional obligation. This decision remained good law until overturned by Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987).” (Wikipedia) In the U.S. Supreme Court case Puerto Rico v. Branstad the question was do federal courts have the power to order Governors to fulfill obligations under the Constitution's Extradition Clause in Article 4, Section 2. In this case Ronald Calder “struck a married couple with his automobile near Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The husband survived the attack but the wife, who was eight months pregnant, did not. Witnesses testified that Calder, after striking the couple, backed his car two or three times over the victim's body.”(Wikipedia) Calder was arrested and charged with first-degree homicide by Puerto Rican authorities and was released after paying a $5,000 bail. When Calder did not appear at two preliminary hearings that were scheduled in the Puerto Rico District Courts, he was then declared a fugitive of justice. Puerto Rican authorities notified the police authorities in Iowa, having suspicions that he might have fled to his home-state. On April 1981, Calder was surrendered to the police in Polk County, Iowa but was released after posting a $20,000 bail. “In May 1981, Governor of Puerto Rico Carlos Romero Barceló submitted to the Governor of Iowa, Robert D. Ray, a request for extradition. The request for extradition was referred to an extradition hearing, where Calder's counsel testified that "a white American man . . . could not receive a fair trial in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." Attempts were made to negotiate a reduction in charges against Calder, but these were unsuccessful and in December 1981 Governor Ray wrote to Governor Barceló that in the absence of a "change to a more realistic charge," the request for extradition was denied. A subsequent extradition request made to Governor Ray's successor in office, Governor Terry Branstad, was also denied.” (Wikipedia) In February 1984, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa that would order Governor Branstad to proceed with the extradition of Ronald Calder. Branstad argued that the Extradition Clause did not apply to Puerto Rico because the Island was not a State of the United States. Also he claimed Puerto Rico could not invoke the Extradition Act because the Federal Court, under Kentucky v. Dennison, did not have power to order Governors to follow the Extradition Clause or Act. “The Court overturned its decision in Kentucky v. Dennison (1861) which had rendered federal courts powerless to enforce the Extradition Clause. The unanimous Court concluded that the precedent in Kentucky was "the product of another age" and "fundamentally incompatible with more than a century of constitutional development."”(OYEZ) In the United States each state has a duty to render suspects on the request of another state, as under the full faith and credit clause. The Supreme Court has established certain exceptions; a state may allow its own legal proceedings against a suspect to take precedence. As explained in the above paragraphs it was established in Kentucky v. Dennison that a state could not petition the federal courts to have another state honor its request for rendition, if the state receiving the request chose not to do so. Then in 1987, this was overturned by Puerto Rico v. Branstad, explaining that a federal interest in resolving interstate rendition disputes was established. Between the both cases the issue was the balance of power between state and federal governments. “Kentucky v. Dennison affirmed the principle that state and federal governments were always to be considered coequal. This, the Court declared in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, was "not representative of current law.”(law.jrank) Bibliography "Interstate Rendition". Wikipedia. April 25 2010 . "Puerto Rico v. Branstad". U.S. Supreme Court Media OYEZ. April 25 2010 . "Puerto Rico v Branstad". Wikipedia. April 25 2010 . Puerto Rico v. Branstad - The Precedent Of Kentucky V. Dennison.