Violation of state extradition law as basis of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. - Violation of state extradition law can serve as the basis of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action if the violation of state law causes the deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution and statutes of the United States. Harden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003).

Recitation that requisition is accompanied by affidavit.

- It is not necessary that the requisition or the Governor's warrant recite that the requisition is accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate. Wollweber v. Martin, 226 Ga. 20, 172 S.E.2d 605 (1970).

Failure of the extradition warrant to list the documents supporting the requisition does not mean that the extradition warrant does not substantially recite the facts necessary to the validity of the warrant's issuance. Carver v. Stynchcombe, 243 Ga. 477, 254 S.E.2d 856 (1979).

Affidavit showing no crime committed.

- When the affidavit supporting the request for extradition shows that no crime was committed, the affadavit is insufficient to sustain an extradition warrant. Brown v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 388, 104 S.E.2d 907 (1958).

Sufficiency of supporting documents always open to judicial inquiry.

- Question as to whether or not the extradition warrant under which an alleged fugitive from justice is held is supported by documents from the demanding state legally sufficient to authorize the fugitive's extradition is always open to judicial inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding. Brown v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 388, 104 S.E.2d 907 (1958).

Burden of showing why warrant should not be executed.

- When, in the trial of a habeas corpus case, it appears that the respondent is holding the petitioner in custody under an executive warrant based upon an extradition proceeding, and the warrant is regular on the warrant's face, the burden is cast upon the petitioner to show some valid and sufficient reason why the warrant should not be executed since there is a presumption that the Governor complied with the Constitution and law and this presumption continues until the contrary appears. Baldwin v. Grimes, 216 Ga. 390, 116 S.E.2d 207 (1960).

If the warrant is regular on the warrant's face, the burden is cast upon the petitioner to show some valid and sufficient reason why the warrant should not be executed. The presumption is that the Governor has complied with the Constitution and the law, and this presumption continues until the contrary appears. Wollweber v. Martin, 226 Ga. 20, 172 S.E.2d 605 (1970).

Cited in Lively v. Fulcher, 244 Ga. 771, 262 S.E.2d 93 (1979); Smith v. Hutson, 250 Ga. 870, 301 S.E.2d 880 (1983); Powell v. Brown, 281 Ga. 609, 641 S.E.2d 519 (2007).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 31A Am. Jur. 2d, Extradition, § 108 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 35 C.J.S., (Rev), Extradition and Detainers, § 41 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (U.L.A.) § 7.

ALR.

- Sufficiency of recitals in rendition warrant in extradition as regards copy of indictment or affidavit, 89 A.L.R. 595.