Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 198.0

524US1

Unit: $U80

[09-06-00 20:24:32] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 151 (1998)

153

Per Curiam

that respondent ﬂed Ohio because of fear that his parole
would be revoked without due process, and that he would be
thereafter returned to prison where he faced the threat of
bodily injury. This “duress” negated his status as a fugitive
under Article IV.

These are serious charges, unrebutted by any evidence at
the hearing in the state trial court.
It may be noted, how-
ever, that the State of Ohio was not a party at that hearing,
and the State of New Mexico, which was defending the Gov-
ernor’s action, is at a considerable disadvantage in producing
testimony, even in afﬁdavit form, of occurrences in the State
of Ohio. Very likely Ohio was aware of our statement in
Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U. S. 86, 89–90 (1952), that the
“scheme of interstate rendition, as set forth in both the Con-
stitution and the statutes which Congress has enacted to im-
plement the Constitution, . . . do[es] not contemplate an ap-
pearance by [the demanding State] in respondent’s asylum
to defend against the claimed abuses of its prison system”
(footnotes omitted).

We accept, of course, the determination of the Supreme
Court of New Mexico that respondent’s testimony was credi-
ble, but this is simply not the kind of issue that may be tried
in the asylum State.
In case after case we have held that
claims relating to what actually happened in the demanding
State, the law of the demanding State, and what may be ex-
pected to happen in the demanding State when the fugitive
returns are issues that must be tried in the courts of that
State, and not in those of the asylum State. Drew v. Thaw,
235 U. S. 432 (1914); Sweeney v. Woodall, supra; Michigan v.
Doran, supra; Pacileo v. Walker, 449 U. S. 86 (1980) (per
curiam). As we said in Pacileo:

“Once the Governor of California issued the warrant for
arrest and rendition in response to the request of the
Governor of Arkansas, claims as to constitutional defects
in the Arkansas penal system should be heard in the
‘ To allow
courts of Arkansas, not those of California.