Bassing v. Cady

Background

A man named Jacob Bassing was arrested in Rhode Island after the Governor of New York sent a formal request saying he was charged in New York with first-degree grand larceny and was a fugitive. Earlier, Bassing had been extradited to New York on March 12, 1907, arraigned, and then the first indictment was dismissed on April 15, 1907; he then returned to Rhode Island. Later a second indictment was filed, and New York again asked Rhode Island to arrest and hand him over, leading to a second arrest warrant and his confinement. Bassing sued for a writ of habeas corpus claiming the arrest was unlawful and that he was not a fugitive.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether Rhode Island could honor a second request for surrender when the first indictment had been dismissed. The Court said Bassing had not been put in legal jeopardy by his arraignment and plea, and the dismissal came before any trial or final jeopardy. Because he was not in jeopardy, the Governor of Rhode Island lawfully issued the second warrant in response to the new indictment and requisition. The warrant from the Rhode Island Governor created a lawful presumption of a valid arrest, and Bassing did not present evidence to disprove that he was a fugitive from New York. The state court therefore correctly refused to order his release.

Real world impact

The decision means a state governor may honor a later extradition request based on a new indictment if the accused was not previously put on trial or placed in jeopardy. People arrested under such a warrant must show proof that they are not fugitives to win habeas relief. The ruling leaves open a different outcome if a prior proceeding had already put the accused in legal jeopardy.