United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan
295 U.S. 396 (1935)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan, 295 U.S. 396 (1935)

United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan

No. 569

Argued April 2, 1935

Decided May 13, 1935

295 U.S. 396

Syllabus

1. The right of the defendant to a hearing before removal from one district to another for trial (R.S., § 1014) is not a constitutional right, but one given by statute. P. 295 U. S. 400.

Page 295 U. S. 397

2. In a removal proceeding under § 1014, the indictment, though not, strictly speaking, evidence, is enough to entitle the Government to removal in the absence of evidence requiring a finding that the prosecution is groundless. P. 295 U. S. 400.

3. In a removal proceeding under R.S., § 1014, the defendant has the right to introduce evidence in opposition to the showing against him, and to have that evidence considered by the commissioner, but the commissioner is without power to rule on disputed questions of law, whether they relate to the sufficiency of the indictment or the validity of the statute on which the charge is based, and he may not decide controverted or doubtful issues of fact. P. 295 U. S. 401.

4. Revised Statutes, § 1014, is to be construed favorably to the Government's applications. P. 295 U. S. 401.

5. In a removal proceeding under that section, arbitrary or capricious appraisal of evidence by the commissioner, or disregard by him of facts indubitably established by the evidence, is tantamount to a rejection of competent evidence, and is in legal effect a denial of the right to be heard before removal. P. 295 U. S. 402.

6. In habeas corpus to review a removal order made under § 1014, the District Court, and the Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal, are called upon to examine the evidence taken before the commissioner and to decide whether it was sufficient to require a finding that there was no substantial ground for bringing the petitioner to trial on any charge specified in the indictment. P. 295 U. S. 402.

7. Reception by the commissioner of incompetent evidence introduced by the Government to impeach witnesses for the defendant, held not a ground in this case for setting the commitment aide. P. 295 U. S. 402.

73 F.2d 274 affirmed.

Certiorari, 294 U.S. 699, to review the affirmance of a judgment of the District Court dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.