Hyde v. Shine

Background

The case involves people accused of a conspiracy to obtain state "school lands" fraudulently and to bribe federal land-office officials in Washington, D.C. The defendants were arrested in places like California and Brooklyn and then ordered transferred for trial in the District of Columbia. They sought habeas corpus relief, arguing the removal statute did not permit transfer to D.C., the D.C. court lacked jurisdiction, the indictment charged no federal crime, and there was no probable cause.

Reasoning

The Court addressed four questions. It held that the federal removal statute (Rev. Stat. §1014) permits transfer from a State judicial district to the District of Columbia. It explained that when an indictment alleges the conspiracy was formed in Washington, that allegation supports D.C. jurisdiction even if overt acts occurred elsewhere, and that an overt act is required by statute to complete a federal conspiracy. The Court found the long indictment sufficient for trial and said producing the indictment creates a prima facie case; the Commissioner heard evidence and found probable cause. Finally, the Court ruled that denial of a discretionary writ of certiorari to bring up the removal record was not error.

Real world impact

The decision allows federal prosecutors to try alleged conspirators in D.C. when the plot is charged as formed there, even if defendants live far away, and restricts early habeas review of indictment sufficiency and probable cause. The opinion also acknowledges the hardship of forcing distant defendants to travel but enforces the statute as written.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing the evidence before the Commissioner showed the defendants were absent from D.C. when the conspiracy was alleged, so certiorari should have been granted to review lack of probable cause and avoid extreme hardship on defendants.