Ex Parte Crawford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Conclusive proof that accused was not in demanding state at time crime is alleged to have been committed is necessary to entitle him to release from custody under extradition warrant on ground that he is not a fugitive from justice and, if testimony is in conflict as to whether accused was in demanding state at such time, writ of habeas corpus will be denied and accused remanded to custody of agent of demanding state.” See also Ex parte Crawford, post.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Habeas Corpus of Anderson v. State · In re Harrell

2. ““The requirements which the demanding state must adhere to are simple and well established by law: that the accused must be charged with a crime in demanding state and be a fugitive from justice of such state. However, if in a habeas corpus proceeding, accused can successfully controvert either, he or she is entitled to be discharged.” “In considering the evidence in this respect the court is fully cognizant of its duty and responsibility to lend the state’s fullest cooperation to the strict enforcement of the Act and never permit our state to become an asylum for fugitives from justice. On the other hand the authority to protect the citizens of this state from illegal arrest and detention must never be watered down, waived, or abandoned.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Habeas Corpus of Anderson v. State

3. ““The court will not discharge a defendant arrested under an extradition warrant where there is merely contradictory evidence on subject of presence in, or absence from the state, as habeas corpus is not the proper proceeding to try the question of alibi, or any question as to the guilt or innocence of accused. If, however, it clearly appears that accused is not in fact a fugitive, discharge will not be refused simply because there is some conflict in the evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Harrell