Ex Parte Potter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Extradition Clause was intended to enable each state to bring offenders to trial as swiftly as possible in the state where the alleged offense was committed. (Citations omitted). [[Image here]] Interstate extradition was intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding derived from the language of Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution. (Citations omitted). The Clause never contemplated that the asylum state was to conduct the kind of preliminary inquiry traditionally intervening between the initial arrest and trial. [[Image here]] Whatever the scope of discretion vested in the governor of an asylum state, cf. Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. 66 , 24 How. 66, 107 , 16 L.Ed. 717 (1861), the courts of an asylum state are bound by Art. IV, § 2, cf. Compton v. Alabama, 214 U.S. 1, 8 , 29 S.Ct. 605, 607 , 53 L.Ed. 885 (1909), by § 3182, and, where adopted, by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. A governor’s grant of extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. (Citations omitted). Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive. These are historic facts readily verifiable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Parra

2. “Given that an alleged fugitive is entitled to counsel and entitled to challenge the legality of his arrest and assert defenses on the basis of which the extradition warrant may be dismissed, the accused must be sufficiently competent to discuss with his counsel facts relating to the limited defenses that may be raised.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commitment of Fisher v. State

3. “Where the fugitive's incompetence prevents him from being able to consult with his counsel in connection with the issues of his identity and presence, those defenses may be foreclosed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commitment of Fisher v. State