## Facts

- Tennessee’s governor demanded that New York surrender Charles E. Corkran, asserting he was charged in Tennessee with larceny and false pretenses and had fled to New York.
- New York’s governor issued an extradition warrant directing New York officers to arrest Corkran and deliver him to Tennessee’s agent.
- James L. Hyatt, Albany’s chief of police, arrested and held Corkran under the warrant.
- Corkran sought habeas corpus in New York, arguing the extradition papers did not show he was a “fugitive from justice” because they did not establish his presence in Tennessee when the crimes were allegedly committed.
- In the habeas proceeding, Corkran produced evidence that he had not been in Tennessee at the relevant times; the material facts of non-presence were treated as conceded and conclusive.
- The New York Supreme Court and Appellate Division denied relief, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed and ordered Corkran discharged.
- Hyatt obtained U.S. Supreme Court review of the discharge order.

## Issues

1. Whether a person can be a “fugitive from justice” for interstate rendition purposes when conceded facts show he was not physically present in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense.
2. Whether, on habeas corpus, the prisoner may rebut the prima facie validity of a governor’s extradition warrant by proving non-presence in the demanding state.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment discharging Corkran.
- A person is not a “fugitive from justice” if conclusive and conceded facts show he was not in the demanding state when the alleged crimes were committed.
- A governor’s extradition warrant is prima facie sufficient to justify detention, but it is not conclusive and may be overcome on habeas corpus by proof of non-fugitivity, including proof of absence from the demanding state at the relevant time.

## Legal Principles

- Interstate rendition under Article IV, § 2, cl. 2 and the federal extradition statute applies only to a true “fugitive from justice,” which presupposes physical presence in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense followed by departure.
- An asylum-state governor’s extradition warrant establishes fugitivity only prima facie.
- Habeas corpus review may test whether the constitutional and statutory prerequisites for extradition exist, including whether the accused was in fact within the demanding state when the alleged acts occurred.

## Conclusion

Because Corkran conclusively proved, on conceded facts, that he was never in Tennessee when the charged acts were alleged to have occurred, he was not a fugitive from justice and could not be extradited; the order releasing him on habeas corpus was affirmed.


Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran, 188 U.S. 691 (1903)