The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax
Hauptmann's Extradition Appeal
Directory Books Search Home Transcript Sources
11/10/02 WKMG Investigates 3/1/03 WKMG New Evidence 4/1/03 More WKMG
by Judge W Dennis Duggan, JFC
reprinted from The Albany County Bar Association Newsletter 01/04
Important News! 8/20/03 Forensic Evidence Removed By American Lindbergh Family
Back to Hauptmann Extradition
Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ex rel. HAUPTMANN
Sheriff, et al.
Sheriff, et al.
from Supreme Court, Bronx County.
corpus proceeding by the People, on the relation of Bruno Richard Hauptmann,
against John Hanley, as Sheriff of Bronx County and Warden of the County Jail of
Bronx County. From an order
dismissing the writ and remanding the relator to custody (153
Misc. 61, 274 N. Y. S. 813), relator appeals.
whether accused was present in demanding state at time of crime should not be
determined upon appeal from order in habeas corpus proceeding remanding accused
to sheriff's custody for interstate rendition, where evidence was conflicting,
but should await trial.
Fawcett, of Brooklyn (Bernhardt M. Meisels, of Brooklyn, on the brief), for
J. Foley, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Sol. Boneparth, of New York City, of
counsel; Herman J. Fliederblum, Edward F. Breslin, and Sylvester Ryan, all of
New York City, on the brief), for respondents.
before FINCH, P. J., and MERRELL, MARTIN, O'MALLEY, and UNTERMYER, JJ.
relator while a prisoner in this state charged with the crime of extortion in
connection with the kidnapping of an infant, was **825 indicted in the state of
New Jersey upon the charge of murder in the first degree, and his custody
demanded by the Governor of that state, pursuant to the Constitution of the
United States, which provides: '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.' Constitution
of the United States, art. 4, § 2,
The relator sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which, after a
hearing, was dismissed at Special Term. From
such dismissal, the relator has appealed.
question presented to us is not to determine finally whether relator was present
in or absent from the state of New Jersey at the time of the commission of the
crime of murder with which he is charged. Upon
that issue there is evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to show that the
relator was present in the state of New Jersey.
The latter, in turn, denied that he was present at the time and place of
the crime, and has adduced evidence in support of an alibi.
relator moves to return the case to the justice at Special Term upon the ground
that he has additional evidence in support of his contention that he was present
at work in New York City from 8 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the
afternoon on March 1, 1932. This
contention is in conflict with documentary evidence already in the record.
In any event, this additional evidence is cumulative and not in itself
conclusive, and there still exists a definite conflict of evidence upon this
Out of this conflicting evidence arises a clear-cut issue of fact.
Such issue should not be determined upon an appeal from an order *259
rendering the custody of the relator to the demanding state, but should await
the trial of the action. When
conflicting evidence is present upon this issue, the latter also becomes a
question to be determined upon the trial as is any
other issue therein arising. A
precedent in point is Hyatt
v. People of State of New York ex rel. Corkran, 188 U. S. 691, at page 710, 23
S. Ct. 456, 458, 47 L. Ed. 657, where Mr. Justice
Peckham, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States and affirming the
New York Court of Appeals, (172
N. Y. 176, 64 N. E. 825) said:
'* * * Mere evidence of an **826 alibi, or evidence that the person
demanded was not in the State as alleged, would not justify his discharge, where
there was some evidence on the other side, as habeas corpus was not the proper
proceeding to try the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused.'
Mr. Justice Woodward, writing for a unanimous court, said:
'The relator is a person. He
has been charged with a crime within the State of New Jersey, and the Executive
of the State from whence he fled has demanded his extradition.
This demand should be honored, unless it is made to clearly appear that
he is not the person so charged, for we may not presume that a sister State will
deny justice to the relator, and it has been laid down by high authority that
mere evidence of an alibi, or evidence that the person demanded was not in the
State as alleged, would not justify his discharge, where there was satisfactory
evidence on the other side, as habeas corpus was not the proper proceeding to
try the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused.'
ex rel. Edelstein v. Warden of City Prison, 154 App. Div. 261, at page 264, 138
N. Y. S. 1095, 1098.
the case at bar, not only has the Governor of New York honored the requisition
of the Governor of New Jersey, as already noted, but also, after a most
exhaustive hearing before the court at Special Term, it has been found that
sufficient has been shown to require relator to be rendered to the state of New
Jersey, there to stand trial. There
is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain this finding and bring this
cause within the authorities above quoted.
order appealed from should be affirmed, and the stay vacated.
affirmed and stay vacated. Order
filed. All concur.
Your interest in the LKH website is appreciated. If you remember to use the Amazon Search Box below, this website will receive a 2% or 5% commission on some of your purchases. Thanks!
Please visit :
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
Directory Books Search Forum Home Transcript Sources
© Copyright Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax 1998 - 2005