Mason v. Warden of Baltimore City Jail

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Robert Mason, alias Ellis Johnson, and Walter Slowe here apply for leave to prosecute appeals from the refusal of writs of habeas corpus. These were filed for release from custody under warrants of rendition issued by the Governor of Maryland upon extradition warrants from the State of North Carolina. Both are charged with the commission of the crime of burglary in Enfield, Halifax County, North Carolina, on December 16, 1952.

Walter Slowe refused to waive extradition and requested a hearing before the Governor. Robert Mason was serving a sixty day sentence, beginning on April 7, 1953, for carrying a concealed weapon when notified by the prison guard that he was wanted by the North Carolina authorities for burglary. Mason’s counsel states that Mason was not informed of the extradition. However, he was brought with Slowe to the extradition hearing which was held before Assistant Attorney General Joseph Buscher on May 25, 1953.

As a result of ⁶⁶¹ these hearings Governor McKeldin issued warrants of rendition for both Slowe and Mason. Both then petitioned for the writs of habeas corpus as provided by Code, 1951, Art. 41, Sec. 24. Judge Joseph L. Carter, of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, after a joint hearing, refused to grant the writs and remanded the petitioners to custody. They apply for leave to prosecute appeals from the refusal of the writs.

They contend that at the extradition hearing they produced conclusive and overwhelming evidence showing that they were in the State of Maryland on December 16, 1952, and not in the State of North Carolina and further that there has been no identification of the petitioners as the alleged robbers. Code, 1951, Art. 41, Sec. 33. The court may conduct an inquiry into petitioner’s allegation that he was not present in the demanding State at the time the alleged crime was committed. Code, 1951, Art. 41, Sec. 24, supra; Audler v. Kriss, 197 Md. 362 ; Willin v. Sheriff of Wicomico County, 201 Md. 667 , 95 A. 2d 87 ; State ex rel.

Channell v. Murphy, 202 Md. 650 , 96 A. 2d 473 . When a warrant is issued by the Governor of the State to which the accused has allegedly fled, a presumption is raised that the accused is the wanted fugitive. This presumption is sufficient, if not rebutted, to justify his arrest and detention and his delivery to the demanding State, unless he shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not the fugitive wanted. If he makes such a showing he is entitled to be released.

State ex rel. Zack v. Kriss, 195 Md. 559 ; Audler v. Kriss, supra; State ex rel. Channell v. Murphy, supra; Young v. Matthews, 84 U. S. App. D. C. 345, 174 F. 2d 35 . A conflict in the evidence is not sufficient to overcome this presumption.

The evidence to overcome such presumption must be overwhelming. State ex rel. Zack v. Kriss, supra; State ex rel. Channel v. Murphy, supra.

The judge below heard conflicting evidence on behalf of petitioners and the State. The record before us in this application contains no transcript of the testimony. ⁶⁶² Of course, it is the duty of the petitioners to include in the record whatever they desire, this Court to consider. Sunshine Laundry Corp. v. White, 197 Md. 582 . However, in petitioners’ brief is recited their interpretation of the testimony.

This brief, which accompanied • petitioners’ application for leave to appeal, states that a Mr. Hartman testified that on