Innes v. Tobin

Background

A woman was taken from Oregon to Texas after Oregon’s governor honored a requisition from Texas. In Texas she was tried for murder and conspiracy and acquitted. After the acquittal Texas held her under a separate Georgia requisition so she could be delivered to Georgia. She sought release in a state court through habeas corpus, arguing the extradition and the later warrant were void because she was never a fugitive from Georgia to Texas. The state trial court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found the facts as stated and refused to free her.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the surrender order violated the Constitution or the federal statute from 1793 (now Rev. Stat. §5278). The Court assumed for decision that she had fled from Georgia and found no direct conflict between the extradition order and the statute. Relying on prior decisions including Lascelles v. Georgia, the Court explained that the statute excludes state action only where the statute itself clearly covers the situation. Because Congress did not intend to strip states of authority in every situation the statute did not expressly address, the State could lawfully hold and surrender a person who had been brought into one State by requisition from another.

Real world impact

The Court affirmed the refusal to discharge the accused. Practically, governors may honor successive requisitions and hold people brought in by extradition for delivery to other States. People brought into a State involuntarily can still be transferred on lawful demands from other States, and habeas corpus will not automatically undo such transfers when federal procedures are followed.