Court Opinion

ID: 9471892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:43:32.390303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:37.742977
License: Public Domain

KEARSE, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result and in most of the majority opinion. I do not, however, subscribe to the majority’s view that in light of Article IV(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C.App., pp. 545, 546 (1982),
the historic power of the writ [of habeas corpus ad prosequendum] seems unavailing once the government elects to file a detainer in the course of obtaining a state prisoner’s presence for disposition of federal charges.
Majority Opinion, ante at 170. In my view, this obiter proposition is debatable. See United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 363, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1848-49, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978):
The proviso of Art. IV(a) does not purport to augment the State’s authority to dishonor such a writ. As the history of the provision makes clear, it was meant to do no more than preserve previously existing rights of the sending States, not to expand them. If a State has never had authority to dishonor an ad prosequendum writ issued by a federal court, then this provision could not be read as providing such authority.
(Footnote omitted.)