Court Opinion

ID: 9464712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:40:27.108628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:46.305280
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment of affirmance of the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, but I have some slightly different ideas from Judge Kelleher.
This extradition business is sui generis and, grounded in equity, I think we can write some rules, at least until overruled by higher authority.
We must agree that the statutes give no right of direct appeal to anybody on an extradition decision, but the “victim” of an extradition order generally gets a pretty broad review under habeas corpus, notwithstanding preachments that it is extremely limited.
I would give the government at least one more shot on extradition when the magistrate has clearly made a wrong ruling, and I think he did here. He let the fugitive put on a pretty fair defense, whereas the fugitive is only entitled to explain or clarify government allegations.
If, on the face of things on the second petition, it appears that a magistrate was clearly right, the second forum should dismiss the petition on that ground. In effect, affirm; although we must not call it that.
If it appears the magistrate may or may not have been right, we ought to give the government a second judge. How many more times, we need not say now. (And, always keep in mind the “fugitive” can get a pretty fair review on habeas corpus on an appeal of an adverse ruling in the second forum.)
I do not mean to suggest that we should permit the government in the Central Dis*1370trict of California (the Ninth Circuit’s largest district) to try out seriatim four magistrates, four retired judges and sixteen active judges. There has to be a point to say, “Lay off, Macduff.”