Haas v. Henkel

1910-02-21

Headline: Removal allowed: Court upholds transfer of a defendant from New York to Washington, letting the Government try alleged scheme to use secret Department of Agriculture crop reports and limiting local-trial demands.

Holding: The Court held that Haas could be lawfully held for removal to the District of Columbia because certified District of Columbia indictments showed probable cause and federal law allows removal even while similar New York charges are pending.

Real World Impact:

Lets prosecutors transfer defendants between districts when indictments exist in multiple places.
Reduces a defendant’s ability to demand trial in his home district.
Certified indictments in another district can establish probable cause for removal.

Topics: conspiracy to defraud, department of agriculture reports, moving trials between districts, bribery allegations

Summary

Background

Moses Haas, accused of joining a scheme to get secret advance cotton-crop information from a Department of Agriculture official and to use or falsify reports for market gains, faced indictments in both the Southern District of New York and the District of Columbia. Haas had posted bail and was fighting the New York proceedings when federal prosecutors sought to arrest and remove him to Washington for trial. A federal commissioner found probable cause based on certified District of Columbia indictments; a New York court consented to the removal, and a federal judge denied Haas’s habeas petition challenging the detention.

Reasoning

The core question was whether federal law (the removal statute §1014) allowed Haas to be held and sent to another district for trial while similar New York charges were pending. The Court said yes: certified indictments from the District of Columbia created a prima facie showing of probable cause, so the commissioner properly ordered detention and removal. The opinion explains that when indictments exist in more than one district, prosecutors may choose the district to try the accused, and bail or pending local charges do not block removal when the other district shows probable cause.

Real world impact

Practically, the ruling means defendants indicted in multiple districts can be moved to the district the Government selects if that district’s indictments show probable cause. It limits a defendant’s ability to insist on trial where he lives and confirms that questions about the ultimate sufficiency of indictments belong to the trial court, not removal proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice concurred in the result but warned the indictments’ ultimate sufficiency should be tested in the trial court; another agreed only in the outcome and reserved judgment on the indictment’s allegations.