Matter of Strauss

Background

The case arose when Ohio sought to have a person surrendered to face charges that Ohio treats as a felony and which normally require an indictment before trial. The federal statute lists acceptable evidence for extradition as either a certified copy of an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate. The dispute was whether the word “charged” in the Constitution requires a formal charge in a court that can try the person, or whether preliminary proceedings before a magistrate count for extradition purposes.

Reasoning

The Court explained that words in the Constitution should be read broadly to allow States flexibility in their criminal procedures. It relied on the idea that extradition is simply a step to secure arrest and detention, not a trial or determination of guilt. The opinion noted that many States use preliminary magistrate proceedings to begin criminal cases and that federal and international practice does not demand a grand jury indictment before surrender. For these reasons, the Court concluded that an affidavit or information filed before a magistrate can satisfy the evidence requirement for extradition and that a prior indictment is not necessary to obtain custody of the accused.

Real world impact

The decision lets States and federal authorities rely on magistrate affidavits or similar preliminary papers to get custody of suspects for trial, speeding transfers without addressing guilt. The Court acknowledged the risk of wrongful or abusive affidavits but emphasized that extradition is only for securing appearance and that guilt must be decided later in the proper trial court.

Dissents or concurrances

Not applicable as one Justice (Harlan) did not take part in the decision.