Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 2510 (2026)

Rights of accused; habeas corpus

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person arrested upon such warrant shall be delivered over to the agent whom the executive authority demanding the person has appointed to receive the person unless the person is first taken forthwith before a judge of a court of record or a justice of the peace in this State, who shall inform the person of the demand made for the person’s surrender and of the crime with which the person is charged, and that the person has the right to demand and procure legal counsel. If the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel states that the person or they desire to test the legality of the prisoner’s arrest, the judge or justice of the peace shall fix a reasonable time to be allowed within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. When such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the Deputy Attorney General of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, or to the Attorney General or the Chief Deputy Attorney General, and to the agent of the demanding state.

41 Del. Laws, c. 213, § 10; 11 Del. C. 1953, § 2510; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1969–1979 · leading case: State v. Cunningham, 405 A.2d 706 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Cunningham, 405 A.2d 706 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979). “11 Del.C. § 2510. Extradition is a significant interference with liberty, and the demanding State is thus required to demonstrate that such interference is justified.”

Grano v. State, 257 A.2d 768 (Del. Super. Ct. 1969). “On June 12, 1969, when he was brought before the Superior Court pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 2510, counsel for Mr. Grano appeared to contest the legality of his arrest.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.