Skip to main content
· 12/1/1902

Grin v. Shine

Citations

  • 187 U.S. 181
  • 23 S. Ct. 98
  • 47 L. Ed. 130
  • 1902 U.S. LEXIS 807

Syllabus

<p>Extradition treaties should be faithfully observed and interpreted with a view to fulfilling our just obligations to other powers, without sacrificing the legal or constitutional rights of the accused. Technical noncompliance with formalities of criminal procedure should not be allowed to stand in the way of the discharge of the international obligations of this Government.</p> <p>1. Section 5270 of the Revised Statutes is satisfied if the commissioner before whom the warrant requires the person arrested to appear has been specifically authorized to act in extradition proceedings on the same day the warrant is issued, and the oath to the complaint need not necessarily be taken before a commissioner specially authorized to act in extradition proceedings; but the judge issuing the'warrant may act upon a complaint sworn to before a United States commissioner authorized generally to take affidavits.</p> <p>2. The District Judge may make the warrant returnable directly before a commissioner who upon the same day is specially designated to act in extradition proceedings. It need not necessarily be made before himself.</p> <p>3. Under a statute punishing embezzlement of property which has come under the control or care of the defendant by virtue of his employment as clerk, agent, or servant, it is sufficient to allege that the defendant while so employed embezzled money entrusted to, and received by, him in his capacity as clerk, etc.</p> <p>A complaint in extradition need not set forth the crime with the particularity of an indictment. It is sufficient if it fairly apprises the party of the crime with which he is charged.</p> <p>4. A complaint is not defective because it does not use the word “ fraudulently” in referring to the defendant’s action in embezzling the money entrusted to him. The word “ embezzle ” implies a fraudulent intent; the addition of the word “ fraudulently ” would be mere surplusage.</p> <p>5. An order made by an officer in Russia, purporting to ac

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that “the production of an equivalent document” that “is evidently designed to secure the apprehension of the accused, and his production before an examining magistrate” is “sufficient compliance with the [applicable] treaty[’s warrant requirement]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beowb

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.