Frank A. Gibson v. Carlton G. Beall

D.C. Circuit

Frank A. Gibson v. Carlton G. Beall

249 F.2d 489, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 397, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4022

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 1957

Docket13796_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 489 (Frank A. Gibson v. Carlton G. Beall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank A. Gibson v. Carlton G. Beall, 249 F.2d 489, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 397, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4022 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of appellant’s habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of an order extraditing him to Virginia. The point urged is that the District Court erred in considering Government evidence which was not before the Chief Judge of the District Court, acting as the chief executive, in the extradition proceeding. We think the point is not well taken.

The extradition order is based on summary executive action. There are no strict rules of evidence — it need only satisfy the extraditing officer — and there is no right to notice or hearing. Marbles v. Creecy, 1909, 215 U.S. 63, 68, 30 S.Ct 32, 54 L.Ed. 92; Munsey v. Clough, 1905, 196 U.S. 364, 372, 25 S.Ct. 282, 49 L.Ed. 515; Lee Won Sing v. Cottone, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 374, 379, 123 F.2d 169, 174. It is therefore left to the habeas corpus proceeding, in which the validity of the extradition proceeding is challenged, to provide the forum for both sides to present evidence on matters relevant to the validity of the extradition order, Johnson v. Matthews, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 378, 182 F.2d 677, *490 679, even though such evidence was not considered by the Chief Judge acting as the chief executive. We are aware of no authority limiting this proposition.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PEE CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of appellant’s habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of an order extraditing him to Virginia. The point urged is that the District Court erred in considering Government evidence which was not before the Chief Judge of the District Court, acting as the chief executive, in the extradition proceeding. We think the point is not well taken.

The extradition order is based on summary executive action. There are no strict rules of evidence — it need only satisfy the extraditing officer — and there is no right to notice or hearing. Marbles v. Creecy, 1909, 215 U.S. 63, 68, 30 S.Ct 32, 54 L.Ed. 92; Munsey v. Clough, 1905, 196 U.S. 364, 372, 25 S.Ct. 282, 49 L.Ed. 515; Lee Won Sing v. Cottone, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 374, 379, 123 F.2d 169, 174. It is therefore left to the habeas corpus proceeding, in which the validity of the extradition proceeding is challenged, to provide the forum for both sides to present evidence on matters relevant to the validity of the extradition order, Johnson v. Matthews, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 378, 182 F.2d 677, *490 679, even though such evidence was not considered by the Chief Judge acting as the chief executive. We are aware of no authority limiting this proposition.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 489, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 397, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-a-gibson-v-carlton-g-beall-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack