State2State Extradition on Federal Charge – Federal or State Extradition Law Applies?

[Kai]

Hi,

A buddy of mine is being charged in Federal court in California with copyright infringement (which is of course a federal jurisdiction). He is being extradited from North Dakota to California to face the charges. He has never in his life been in California.

There are two acts governing extradition in this case:
On the Federal Level: 18 U.S.C. 3182 ( [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003182----000-.html[/url] )
On the State Level: UNIFORM EXTRADITION AND RENDITION ACT ( [url]http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t29c303.pdf[/url] )

Since the charge is Federal, his extradition hearing has been held in Federal court in North Dakota. However, what I'm trying to find out is whether the court has to follow federal extradition laws or state extradition laws in this matter.

This makes a big difference since the conditions and time limits differ between the two.

My guess is that state laws apply. Does anyone know?


Thanks

[CdwJava]

As I understand it, extradition is a routine matter. The best he can do is gum up the works for a couple of months, but he WILL be extradited to CA to stand trial.

His attorney can certainly advise him of the details of the extradition process ... and that it is only a matter of time before he is transferred no matter how hard he tries to fight it. The states are not independent nations with individual treaties.

It will also depend on whether he is in federal custody in SD or if he is in state custody. If the feds picked him up, I don't believe the process even requires a court hearing for extradition, but I could be wrong. If the local authorities picked him up on the warrant, then he will have a right to a hearing, but if it's much the same as out here, it will be short and sweet and he will be on his way out of state rather quickly.

- Carl

[Kai]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

As I understand it, extradition is a routine matter. The best he can do is gum up the works for a couple of months, but he WILL be extradited to CA to stand trial.

Thanks for the reply Carl. In this case, however, it is a little less routine.

The reason is that 18 U.S.C. 3182 requires the person being extradited to have fled from the jurisdiction of the requesting state. Since he has never been in CA, he couldn't have fled from it.

UERA, however, applies regardless of where the person being charged was at the time the alleged offense was committed.

He is in Federal custody, and yes, there is a hearing (for identification and such).

So this brings me back to my previous question. Do federal district courts apply federal law or state law?

[CdwJava]

I really don't know for sure. Sorry.

I am curious why it really matters? After all, one would assume that his attorney knows. And, he is not going to be able to prevent them from transfering the matter to CA in the long run ... or is he just trying to delay the transfer for as long as he can for some reason?

- Carl

[Kai]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

I really don't know for sure. Sorry.

I am curious why it really matters? After all, one would assume that his attorney knows. And, he is not going to be able to prevent them from transfering the matter to CA in the long run ... or is he just trying to delay the transfer for as long as he can for some reason?

- Carl

If all attorneys knew everything, people would never need to ask for a second opinion or talk to multiple attorneys before hiring one. An attorney may very well not know enough to deal with a situation which is fairly rare.

There are a variety of reasons for an extradition attempt to fail. It happens all the time in both international and national cases. Just like with criminal prosecution, the State usually wins, but not every time.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by Kai

If all attorneys knew everything, people would never need to ask for a second opinion or talk to multiple attorneys before hiring one. An attorney may very well not know enough to deal with a situation which is fairly rare.

There are a variety of reasons for an extradition attempt to fail. It happens all the time in both international and national cases. Just like with criminal prosecution, the State usually wins, but not every time.

**A: thanks for writing and going off the main subject. What class is this homework for?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Kai

There are a variety of reasons for an extradition attempt to fail. It happens all the time in both international and national cases. Just like with criminal prosecution, the State usually wins, but not every time.

In my 16 years at this job I have never known an interstate attempt to fail. But, I suppose the odd procedural foul up DOES occasionally happen ... that would simply mean they would correct the foul up and come back again. Eventually he would still have to answer for the charges - they will not just go away because he somehow manages to find an un-crossed "T" in the paperwork.

- Carl

[Kai]

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: thanks for writing and going off the main subject. What class is this homework for?

It's not homework, it's a real life situation. Do you have some helpful input?

[Kai]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

In my 16 years at this job I have never known an interstate attempt to fail. But, I suppose the odd procedural foul up DOES occasionally happen ... that would simply mean they would correct the foul up and come back again. Eventually he would still have to answer for the charges - they will not just go away because he somehow manages to find an un-crossed "T" in the paperwork.

- Carl

I can cite many failed attempts from reviewing case law this morning. Answering charges later is better than answering charges now because it would give him time to find the right attorney and save enough money for the battle.

[CdwJava]

Well, good luck delaying the inevitable. But, he'll eventually have to answer the charges.

And the federal law I have looked up on the issue deals with STATE transfers of prisoners, but if this is a federal transfer (i.e. federal lockup in SD to federal lockup in CA) then there would appear to be no real impact on the issue as no governor's warrant is apparently needed.

And if he intends to appear for ANY hearing without an attorney, he can expect to lose. Hopefully he has retained counsel for the hearing and is not relying on a review of the law by friends and family.

- Carl

[FlyingRon]

You don't need to have set foot in a state to be charged with a crime there and be extradited.
You can commit crimes over the phone or via computer or other more primitive forms of communication.

[Kai]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

And if he intends to appear for ANY hearing without an attorney, he can expect to lose. Hopefully he has retained counsel for the hearing and is not relying on a review of the law by friends and family.

Of course.

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

You don't need to have set foot in a state to be charged with a crime there and be extradited. You can commit crimes over the phone or via computer or other more primitive forms of communication.

Like not paying child support or writing bad checks as well.

For those interested, I found the answer in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. It looks like state law applies.

[Ohiogal]

Kai, you really think you understand the Erie doctrine?

[Kai]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Kai, you really think you understand the Erie doctrine?

Would you kindly enlighten me?