Court Opinion

ID: 9734522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:37:07.020342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.991696
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I am in total agreement with my colleague that Pacileo v Walker, 449 US 86; 101 S Ct 308; 66 L Ed 2d 304 (1980), reh den 450 US 960; 101 S Ct 1421; 67 L Ed 2d 385 (1981), requires the affirmation of the decisions of the Court of Appeals below resulting in the denial of writs of habeas corpus for the defendants. As he has noted, the United States Supreme Court has found that a state court *682in the asylum state may not inquire into the constitutional defects of the prison system of the demanding state once a claim of extradition has properly been made upon the asylum state.
However, I dissent from the inherent criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pacileo that it failed to recognize an exception to the clear mandate of article IV, § 2, cl 2 of the Constitution of the United States requiring a state to deliver a fugitive from justice to the state from which he fled upon demand. The Pacileo Court considered both the language of the Extradition Clause and the policies behind it clearly determining uniformity in application to be appropriate. Even assuming the principles of federalism and comity and the interest in allowing a state to defend its prison system in its own courts, where it would be least burdensome to it, are minimal, the prevention of the "balkanization” of the administration of criminal justice is the manifest purpose of the Extradition Clause. See Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282; 99 S Ct 530; 58 L Ed 2d 521 (1978). We cannot say that the defendant’s constitutional rights will not be vindicated, particularly in this case where the federal court has taken an active role in ensuring constitutional compliance. See Pugh v Locke, 406 F Supp 318, 322 (MD Ala, 1976).
Second, I dissent from the gratuitous stay my colleagues allow. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on point, its denial of a rehearing, and the fact that Pacileo was based on what the Court considered to be clear precedent as much as thirty years old, Sweeney v Woodall, 344 US 86; 73 S Ct 139; 97 L Ed 114 (1952), a stay in order that the appellants might remain in this state until they can challenge Pacileo is totally unwarranted. It amounts to an affront to the United States *683Supreme Court. It has not been requested by the appellants and does not rest, in my judgment, upon any reasonable belief that "we may have incorrectly interpreted” Pacileo.
Coleman, J., concurred with Ryan, J.
Riley, J., took no part in the decision of these cases.