Wright v. Henkel

Background

A person arrested in New York faced a British request for extradition based on alleged false corporate statements. Before the commissioner completed an examination, the accused sought habeas corpus, arguing the complaint did not charge an extraditable crime and that he should be admitted to bail. The core dispute turned on whether the alleged conduct was a crime both under British law and under U.S. law as the treaty requires, and whether U.S. courts may release such a person on bail while surrender is pending.

Reasoning

The Court explained that extradition treaties require that the act be criminal in both countries, and that this includes crimes defined by the laws of a State where the fugitive is found. Comparing the British statute and New York’s penal provision, the Court found the offenses substantially analogous and therefore within the treaty. The Court held the commissioner had jurisdiction to proceed. On bail, the Court relied on federal statutes that direct commitment for surrender and noted practical and international difficulties in allowing bail, concluding that denying bail in this case was proper.

Real world impact

The decision means U.S. tribunals can rely on state criminal laws when deciding whether an offense fits an extradition treaty, and it affirms that courts may refuse bail in extradition cases so surrender can be carried out. The ruling leaves open procedural options for the requesting government, which may withdraw and renew its application, but it makes immediate release on bail unlikely in similar cases.