Greene v. Henkel
Headline: Court upholds order sending criminal defendants from New York to Georgia for trial, finding a certified indictment and magistrate’s probable-cause finding sufficient and limiting habeas review of the removal.
Holding: The Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, ruling that a certified indictment plus competent evidence can establish probable cause for removal and such removal orders are not reviewable on habeas corpus.
- Limits habeas corpus review of removal orders based on probable cause.
- Allows magistrates to rely on certified indictments and competent evidence for removal.
- Requires indictment challenges to be raised in the trial court where returned.
Summary
Background
Federal prosecutors in New York filed a sworn complaint and attached a certified copy of an indictment from a Georgia federal court. A magistrate (commissioner) in New York arrested the defendants, held hearings, and committed them to await removal to Georgia after finding probable cause. A District Judge reviewed the matter, sent it back for further hearing, then approved removal. The defendants sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge that removal order.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the judge had power to order removal and whether habeas corpus could be used to reexamine the merits of that decision. The Court explained that, for removal proceedings, a certified indictment is prima facie valid and a magistrate may rely on it together with competent evidence to find probable cause. Because the record before the habeas court did not include the hearing evidence, the Court assumed competent evidence supported probable cause and held that habeas corpus cannot be used to relitigate the weight of that evidence. The Court also said issues about grand jury selection and indictment sufficiency belong to the court where the indictment was returned.
Real world impact
This decision leaves in place the process for transferring accused federal defendants to the district where the indictment was found when a magistrate and judge find probable cause. It limits the use of habeas corpus to attack such removal orders on the basis of evidence weight, and it directs defendants to raise technical objections to indictments in the trial court where the indictment was returned.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?