Benjamin D. Greene v. William Henkel

Citations

• 183 U.S. 249
• 22 S. Ct. 218

Syllabus

<p>A fair interpretation of the language used by the District Judge in the court below in granting the application for a warrant of' removal from New York to Georgia shows that from the evidence he was of opinion that there existed probable cause, and that the defendants should therefore be removed for trial before the court in which the indictment was found.</p> <p>In proceedings touching the removal of a person indicted, in another State from that in which he is found to that in which the indictment is found this court must assume, in the absence of the evidence before the court below, that its finding of probable cause was sustained by competent evidence.</p> <p>It is nota condition precedent to taking action under Kev. Stat. § 1014that an indictment for the offence should have been found.</p> <p>The finding of an indictment does not preclude the Government, under Rev. Stat. § 1014, from giving evidence of á certain and definite character concerning the commission of the offence by the defendants in regard to acts, times, and circumstances which are stated in the indictment itself with less minuteness and detail.</p> <p>Upon this writ the point to be decided .is, whether the judge who made the order for the removal of'the defendants had jurisdiction to make it; and if-he had the question whether upon the merits he ought to have made it is not one which can be reviewed by means of a writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>The indictment in this case is prima facie good; and when a copy of it is certified by the proper officer, a magistrate acting pursuant'to Rev. Stat. § 1014, is justified in treating the instrument as an indictment found by a competent grand jury, and is not authorized to go into evidence which may show or tend to show violations of the United States statutes in the drawing of the jurors composing the grand jury which found the indictment.</p> <p>By a removal such as was made in this case the constitutional rights of the defendants were in no way taken fro