Cases by Issue - Fugitive from Justice

Degen v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-173

Petitioner

Degen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

517 U.S. 820 (1996)

Argued

Monday, April 22, 1996

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1996

Advocates

Miguel A. Estrada (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Lawrence S. Robbins (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Brian Degen was indicted in 1989 for distributing marijuana, laundering money, and related crimes. On the same day the district court unsealed the indictment, it also unsealed a civil forfeiture complaint for properties allegedly worth $5.5 million and purchased with proceeds of Degen's drug sales or used to facilitate the sales. Degen is a citizen of both the U.S. and Switzerland, and in 1988 he and his family moved to Switzerland. He has not returned to the U.S. to face criminal charges and by treaty the Swiss are not obliged to extradite their nationals to the U.S. While residing in Switzerland, Degen filed an answer in the civil case, claiming that the forfeiture was barred by the statute of limitations and was an unlawful retroactive application of forfeiture laws. The district court did not consider his arguments. Instead, it entered summary judgment against him, holding that he was not entitled to be heard in the civil action because he remained outside the country, unamenable to criminal prosecution. On appeal, the government argued that the district court's inherent powers authorized it to strike Degen's claims under the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine."

Question

Should the fugitive disentitlement doctrine be extended to allow a court in a civil forfeiture suit to enter judgment against a claimant, without any opportunity to be heard, because the claimant is a fugitive from, or otherwise is resisting, a related criminal prosecution?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Degen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

No. Principles of deference to the other branches of government require a court to invoke its inherent power only as a reasonable response to the problems and needs that provoke it. No sufficient reason justifies disentitlement here. Since the court's jurisdiction over the property is secure despite Degen's absence, there is no risk of delay or frustration in determining the merits of the government's forfeiture claims or in enforcing the resulting judgment. Also, the court has alternatives, other than disentitlement, to keep Degen from using liberal civil discovery rules to gain an improper advantage in the criminal prosecution, where discovery is more limited. Finally, disentitlement is an excessive response to the court's interests in redressing the indignity visited upon it by Degen's absence from the criminal proceeding, and in deterring flight from criminal prosecution in general; it is a response that erodes rather than enhances the dignity of the court.

Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-7749

Petitioner

Ortega-Rodriguez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 234 (1993)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1993

Advocates

James Robert Gailey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Amy L. Wax (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ortega-Rodriguez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

California v. Superior Court Of California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-381

Petitioner

California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Superior Court Of California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 400 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 9, 1987

Advocates

Dennis P. Riordan (on behalf of Respondent)

J. Robert Jibson (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for California, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3182

None

Puerto Rico v. Branstad

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2116

Petitioner

Puerto Rico

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Branstad

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 219 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 30, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, June 23, 1987

Advocates

Lino J. Saldana (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Brent R. Appel (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Ronald Calder was a native of Iowa working in Puerto Rico, He was charged with first degree murder and attempted murder. After posting bail, he fled to his home state. Puerto Rico submitted a petition to Branstad, Iowa's governor at the time, to extradite Calder for court proceedings. Branstad refused.

Question

Do federal courts have the power to order governors to fulfill obligations under the Constitution's Extradition Clause in Article IV, Section 2?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Puerto Rico, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2: Extradition Clause

Yes. The Court overturned its decision in Kentucky v. Dennison (1861) which had rendered federal courts powerless to enforce the Extradition Clause. The unanimous Court concluded that the precedent in Kentucky was "the product of another age" and "fundamentally incompatible with more than a century of constitutional development."

New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1217

Petitioner

New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reed

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

524 U.S. 151 (1998)

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1998

Facts of the Case

The Extradition Act implements the Constitution's extradition clause and provides for the extradition from one state of a fugitive from justice when a demand for the fugitive's extradition is made by another state. Manuel Ortiz, a parolee from the Ohio correctional system, fled to New Mexico after Ohio prison officials told him that they planned to revoke his parole status. The governor of New Mexico issued a warrant directing Ortiz's return upon Ohio's demand. Ortiz then sought habeas corpus relief in New Mexico. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed a grant of habeas corpus relief. The court expressed the view that Ortiz was a refugee from injustice and that the New Mexico constitution, which guarantees the right of seeking and obtaining safety, prevailed over the state's duty under the extradition clause.

Question

Did the Supreme Court of New Mexico err in upholding grant of state habeas corpus relief to parolee whom state of Ohio sought to extradite as alleged fugitive from justice by going beyond the scope of permissible inquiry?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 2: Extradition Clause

Yes. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that "the Supreme Court of New Mexico went beyond the permissible inquiry in an extradition case, and permitted the litigation of issues not open in the asylum State." The opinion stated, "this is simply not the kind of issue that may be tried in the asylum State. In case after case we have held that claims relating to what actually happened in the demanding State, the law of the demanding State, and what may be expected to happen in the demanding State when the fugitive returns, are issues that must be tried in the courts of that State, and not in those of the asylum State."