Legal Document

364 U.S. 611 81 Supreme Court Reporter 338 5 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 329 Paul John CARBO, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 72. Argued Nov. 16, 1960. Decided Jan. 9, 1961. Messrs. Atlantic L. Wirin and William baron Beirne, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The sole question in this case is whether District Southern California has jurisdiction to issue a writ habeas corpus ad prosequendum directing New York City prison official deliver petitioner, prisoner that City, trial on an indictment pending court.1 Both Appeals have held such does exist. 9 Cir., 277 Federal Reporter, 2nd 433. Recognizing effective administration criminal justice required our decision point, we granted certiorari 363 802, 80 1239, 4 1146. We affirm judgment. 2 Petitioner, one five defendants indicted September 22, 1959, charges extortion conspiracy,2 was arrested Baltimore, Maryland, where he posted bond returnable court. Before appearing pursuant his obligation under bond, petitioner pleaded guilty three misdemeanor sentenced serve two-year term Prison, addition payment fine. Pursuant issuing from court authorities, appeared custody before court, arraigned not indictment. Upon petitioner's request ordered be returned Prison order obtain counsel thereafter returned3 time set March 29, In might meet as well latter order, 1960, again issued return On same date it could served, moved quash writ. His ground objection had no power officer located outside its territorial limits. contention bottomed language 28 Code KF62 § 2241 codified 1948, Annotated KF65 U5 2241.4 concluded issuance within authorized by Congress 2241. 3 This first undertaken construction statutory authority writs since Chief Marshall, Ex parte Bollman, 1807, Cranch 75, L.Ed. 554, interpreted First Judiciary Act, Statutes-at-Large 81—82 (1789). It seems, therefore, both appropriate view necessary trace course followed congressional action granting judicial generally. Section 14 Act gave 'all * courts scire facias, corpus, all other specially provided statute, which may exercise their respective jurisdictions, agreeable principles usages law. And either justices supreme judges district courts, shall grant purpose inquiry into cause commitment.—Provided, That extend prisoners gaol, unless they are custody, or colour States, committed some same, brought testify.' 6 indeed fortunate benefit close scrutiny Marshall subjected supra. Initially, observed 'for meaning resort unquestionably common law; but award any must given written law.' Cranch, at pages 93—94. Mindful perhaps own observation preceding year 'There obscurity act congress.' Burford, 448, page 449, 495, then proceeded analyze described 14. He recognized 'is generic term' including many species encompassed, concluded, Great Writ (habeas subjiciendum, restraint) prosequendum. 'Great Justice' noted, however, when used Constitution,5 is, 'when singly—when say without addition, most generally mean great writ' traditionally test restraint liberty. supra, 95. 7 Justice, following English practice, particularly Blackstone, Commentaries *129, noted remove prosecute him proper wherein offense committed. discussion usage various writs, qualification customary confined. 8 Following 1789, there came series legislative amendments dealing with but, significantly, related solely Writ.6 Simultaneously expansion Writ, developed source, second line statutes—the 'All writs' portion 14, large measure sentence section, devolved process along parallel separate provisions. revision federal statutes 1874, general part express disappeared derivative sentence, R.S. 716 (1875), after further amendment, known today 1651, 1651.7 was, retained reorganized sections Revised Statutes 751 (1875),8 served modern version upon relied Bollman. section 1875 Revision laws 752, authorizing judges, included jurisdictional limitation9 been imposed time10 1867, 385. motive limitation can traced position reportedly taken Chase rejecting application incarcerated circuit.11 Senate amended draft bill expanding once inserted phrase 'within jurisdictions'—an obvious individual exercising Writ. debates indicate thought inconvenient, potentially embarrassing, certainly expensive whole quite unnecessary provide every judge anywhere behalf applicants far distantly removed whereon sat.12 10 third revised arrangement, 753, collected instances imprisoned applicants. 11 From history becomes continual concern Writ—habeas subjiciendum. Exclusively did give attention, only impose limitation. writ, involved here—habeas prosequendum—continued derive what repealed until Large, re-enacted two distinct sections, (all-writs) (general corpus). 12 obviously made attempt completely provisions those concerning writs. However, just 1789 found reference so too constituted lineal 751, limitation, distinguished State versus Sullivan, C.C., 50 KF105 F3 593, 598. Clearly, use generic, whereas jurisdictions' 752 specific, Writ.13 13 Thus, tool potency administrative efficiency, extended entire country. designed relieve oppressive confinement, properly least early 1842,14 issuable confinement. consonance convenience, necessity avoidance inordinate expense considerations remarkably unpersuasive viewed light role trichotomy statutes, setting out continued through 1911 Judicial affect repeal significant amendment existing law writs.15 1925, amended, 43 940, attention paid assign Courts circuits districts—an adherence tradition embodied dealt limitations issuance. clarification Code16 desirable, statute took present form, explicit statute.17 Although were merged one, done 'with changes phraseology effect consolidation.' Specifically disclaimed intent change corpus. Revisor considered new deal almost exclusively spite authorization testificandum prosequendum, note: 'Words liberty' omitted merely descriptive writ.'18 reconstructed 2241, now single ostensibly previously Writ's judges. 15 Since limiting always see reason read codification specifically Revisor. conclusion, refers bulk concerned. 16 feel indication more restricted than 1807 it. Cases reported Circuit Appeals, involving extraterritorial 1948 revision, Taylor 98 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 238 259; ex rel. Moses Kipp, 232 147; Hill 186 669; four, cf. Vanover Cox, 136 442, accepted, unchallenged,19 interpretation suffers geographical use. 17 Moreover, appears neither strained nor anomalous. Much borrowed brethren. practice limited never abandoned system Cf. Chitty's Criminal Law 132 (1847), Bacon's Abridgment 566 (1856) similar process. After hundred years, cannot expressly said intended make substantive changes. strongly led recognition continually increasing importance assigned patently desirable. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 4(c)(2) 17(e) (1), 18 here accommodation important between state authorities. Hebert Louisiana, 1926, 272 312, 315—316, 47 103, 104, 71 270. comity sovereignties federal-state full affording respect courtesy jurisdictions.20 Viewed history, reliance cases 1651(a), unrelated misplaced. Ahrens Clark, 335 188 68 1443, 92 1898, clearly inapposite also Hayman, 1952, 342 205, 72 263, 96 232, even involved.21 To extent lower decisions contrary disapprove conclusions.22 19 Even agreed argument, would nonetheless constrained recognize that, attitude adopted Endo, 1944, 323 283, 65 208, 89 243, rigid formulae, tempered factual requiring 'objective way impaired defeated removal Court' suit begun. At 307 U.S., 221 Such facts here. Petitioner Carbo filed appearance submitted himself personal plea arraignment. Permission promise condition do so. Implicit consent custodians promptly. Habeas involved, assurance suffer default bail. Just mere subsequent Endo failed render beyond court's consider, here, vein, these factors fastened onto unsecure leash escape must, event, facts. 20 Affirmed. 21 WHITTAKER, believing peculiar though denominated 'Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum,' should regarded subpoena Paragraph (a) (e)(1) Rule Rules Procedure, concurs result Court's opinion. 22 WARREN, whom BLACK joins, dissenting. 23 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions agree 'apart specific exceptions created territorial,' 188, 190, 1444, rule 'a limits district.' Georgia Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 439, 467—468, 716, 731, 1051. These applied subjiciendum words courts. Today departing rested, holds restrictive inapplicable justification variant interpretations statute. 24 helped tortured antecedents, material least, ambiguous,1 support inferences diametrically opposed drawn For example, fact appear enactment reasonably implies none prior relevant insofar concerned, codifying unified paragraph apply enumerated, among 25 presented matter impression us, concludes three, upheld become 'accepted' one. But time, recognizes 'relied 2241.' each cases, overruled defendant's speedy holding orders 'run jurisdiction,' bring defendant who district. Matter Van Collins, D.C.Me., 160 F.Supp. 165, 167; Phillips Hiatt, D.C.Del., 83 935, 938. Edgerly Kennelly, 215 420; Yodock 196 1018. hardly 26 below justified rather 1651. refrains relying as, indeed, should, 1651 regard writ.2 See Price Johnston, 334 266, 279, 1049, 1057, 1356; Adams McCann, 317 269, 272—273, 63 236, 238—239, 87 268. 27 There persuasive reasons conferring perfectly free if expanded, traditional abandoned, indicate.3 so, does, tamper scheme, except procedure adopting special submitting approval. 4(c)(2), 17(e)(1), Crim.Proc. Finally, add few dictum regardless placed because entered guilty, permitted come back trial. virtue appearance, 'fastened leash' 'leash' supported ignores initial obtained means addressed authorities Prison. ill behooves justify unauthorized acquired equally writ.4 theory introduces unwise judicially engrafted bootstrap exception my opinion, reality rope sand. Government raised standing challenge (cf. Ponzi Fessenden, 258 254, 42 309, 66 607), point waived stipulation Appeals. circumstances reaches us believe taken. §§ 875, 1951, 1951. follows: 'Defendant requests permission enter pleads *. 'Court Orders Defendant codefendants 9:30 AM, directs obtaining trial.' provides: '(a) Writs Court, thereof, circuit jurisdictions. records complained had. '(c) unless— '(1) color thereof; '(2) pursuance Congress, process, judgment decree States; '(3) violation Constitution treaties '(4) He, being citizen foreign domiciled therein alleged right *; '(5) testify Article I, cl. 2. original (1789), 634 (1833), 539 (1842), 385 (1867), 752—753 940 (1925). (1875): 'The facias. They corpus.' several liberty.' Actually, 1842 extension availability applicants, 539, issuance—power applications citizens Justices decision, unreported, consonant legitimate inference expressed 1842, note 10, limit circuits, Cong. Globe, Part 1, Page 730; 2, Pages 790, 899, 39th Cong., Sess. decide subject 1867 420. 36 1167. 751—753 (1875) 451—453 (1946 ed.). 4, H.R.Rep. 2646, 79th Sess., A169; 308, 80th 1st A177—A178. unmindful terse Third 1018, divergent Courts. derived (1875); Collins relied, distinction, 1898 cooperation honoring absent cooperation. case, 1356, nature statutes. 19, Taft, speaking 607, construed 753 Statutes, enactments imposing said: 'Under permitting it, (the prisoner) evidence tried district, Rev.Stats. *.' Id., 261, 311. (Emphasis added.) saying necessarily inferred 2255, 2255. involve 2255; unambiguously indicated intent. read: 'Rule 4. Warrant Summons Complaint. Execution Service; Return. Territorial Limits. warrant executed summons place States.' 17. Subpoena. '(e) Place Service. States. A attendance witness hearing misplaced, respects.

Classification Label: 0