Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    109 - 21 Ker V Illinois

    Uploaded by

    Janelle Manzano
    The Supreme Court ruled that Ker was not denied due process, even though he was forcibly abducted from Peru and brought to the United States without an extradition proceeding. [The Court found that] due process is satisfied if a defendant receives a trial according to proper legal procedures, and any irregularities in how they were brought into custody do not invalidate the prosecution. [It noted that] Peru could have voluntarily surrendered Ker to Illinois authorities without a demand, so his abduction did not violate the extradition treaty or entitle him to asylum in Peru.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    109 - 21 Ker V Illinois

    Uploaded by

    Janelle Manzano
    53 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Ker was not denied due process, even though he was forcibly abducted from Peru and brought to the United States without an extradition proceeding. [The Court found that] due process is satisfied if a defendant receives a trial according to proper legal procedures, and any irregularities in how they were brought into custody do not invalidate the prosecution. [It noted that] Peru could have voluntarily surrendered Ker to Illinois authorities without a demand, so his abduction did not violate the extradition treaty or entitle him to asylum in Peru.

    Original Title

    109 - 21 ker v illinois

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Ker was not denied due process, even though he was forcibly abducted from Peru and brought to the United States without an extradition proceeding. [The Court found that] due process is satisfied if a defendant receives a trial according to proper legal procedures, and any irregularities in how they were brought into custody do not invalidate the prosecution. [It noted that] Peru could have voluntarily surrendered Ker to Illinois authorities without a demand, so his abduction did not violate the extradition treaty or entitle him to asylum in Peru.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views2 pages

    109 - 21 Ker V Illinois

    Uploaded by

    Janelle Manzano
    The Supreme Court ruled that Ker was not denied due process, even though he was forcibly abducted from Peru and brought to the United States without an extradition proceeding. [The Court found that] due process is satisfied if a defendant receives a trial according to proper legal procedures, and any irregularities in how they were brought into custody do not invalidate the prosecution. [It noted that] Peru could have voluntarily surrendered Ker to Illinois authorities without a demand, so his abduction did not violate the extradition treaty or entitle him to asylum in Peru.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    KER V ILLINOIS

    FACTS

    Ker was charged to have committed Larceny in Illinois. After the commission of the alleged
    offense, he went to Peru.

    The Governor of Illinois made his requisition to the Secretary of State of the US for a warrant
    requesting the extradition of the defendant to Cook County by the Republic of Peru. The
    resident of the US issued his warrant directed to a messenger (Julian), to receive Ker from the
    authorities of Peru, in compliance with the treaty between the US and Peru. The messenger,
    having the necessary papers, arrived in Lima, but, without presenting them to any officer of the
    Peruvian government or making any demand on that government for the surrender of Ker,
    forcibly and with violence arrested him, placed him on board the US vessel Essex in which he
    was carried a prisoner to San Francisco, California.

    The process of the criminal court was served upon him, and he was held to answer the
    indictment already mentioned. Ker alleged that he was in fact kidnapped from Peru and brought
    to the country against his will. According to him, he was also refused any opportunity for
    communication with any person or seeking advice for legal assistance. He also claims that he
    was denied due process because the abduction violated the US-Peru Extradition Treaty.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not Ker was denied due process.

    RULING

    Ker was not denied due process.

    Due process of law is complied with when the party is regularly indicted by the proper grand jury
    in the state court, has a trial according to the forms and modes prescribed for such trials, and
    when in that trial and proceedings he isn’t deprived of rights to which he is lawfully entitled. For
    mere irregularities in manner in which he was brought into the custody of the law, he isn’t
    entitled to say that he shouldn’t be tried for the crime with which he is charged in a regular
    indictment.

    This treaty of extradition doesn’t provide that a party fleeing from the US to escape punishment
    for crime becomes thereby entitled to an asylum in the country to which he has fled. It isn’t
    contended that Peru couldn’t have ordered Ker out of the country on his arrival, or at any period
    of his residence there. Nor can it be doubted that Peru could, of its own accord, without any
    demand from the US, have surrendered Ker to an agent of Illinois, and this surrender would’ve
    been valid within the dominions of Peru.
    The right of the Peruvian government to voluntarily give a party, in Ker’s condition, an asylum in
    that country is quite a different thing from his right to demand and insist upon security in such an
    asylum. The treaty, so far as it regulates the right of asylum, is intended to limit this right in the
    case of one who is proved to be a criminal fleeing from justice; so that, on proper demand and
    proceedings had therein, the government of the country of the asylum shall deliver him up to the
    country where the crime was committed. And to this extent, the treaty does regulate or impose a
    restriction upon the right of the government of the country of the asylum to protect the criminal
    from removal.

    In this case, the treaty wasn’t called into operation or relied upon.

    You might also like