LITTLE v. CIUROS, 436 U.S. 1301 (1978)
U.S. Supreme Court
LITTLE v. CIUROS , 436 U.S. 1301 (1978)436 U.S. 1301
Joan LITTLE
v.
William CIUROS, Jr., Commissioner of Correction of the City of New
York and Essie Murph, Superintendent of New York City Correctional
Institution for Women
No. A-1007
Supreme Court of the United States
June 7, 1978
Further application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal.
Mr. Justice MARSHALL, Circuit Justice.
The application for a stay n this case was denied by the Court on June 5, 1978. 436 U.S. 943.
This new application is based on the following allegation:
"Following this Court's denial on June 5, 1978, of Petitioner's original application for the aforesaid stay, counsel for Petitioner has been informed that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina has stated publicly that it intends to prosecute petitioner for the crime of escape upon her return to said jurisdiction."
In support of this new application it is stated:
"Under the principle of specialty, a demanding country may not try an individual who has been extradicted [sic] for any offense other than that for which extradition was granted, unless the alleged offense was committed after extradition. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 [] (1886)."
It just so happens that United States v. Rauscher was controlled by a treaty between the United States and Great Britain. Needless to say, there is no treaty involved here.
The application is, therefore, without legal support and is
Denied.[ Little v. Ciuros 436 U.S. 1301 (1978)
]
U.S. Supreme Court
LITTLE v. CIUROS , 436 U.S. 1301 (1978) 436 U.S. 1301 Joan LITTLEv.
William CIUROS, Jr., Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York and Essie Murph, Superintendent of New York City Correctional Institution for Women
No. A-1007 Supreme Court of the United States June 7, 1978 Further application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. Mr. Justice MARSHALL, Circuit Justice. The application for a stay n this case was denied by the Court on June 5, 1978. 436 U.S. 943. This new application is based on the following allegation: "Following this Court's denial on June 5, 1978, of Petitioner's original application for the aforesaid stay, counsel for Petitioner has been informed that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina has stated publicly that it intends to prosecute petitioner for the crime of escape upon her return to said jurisdiction." In support of this new application it is stated: "Under the principle of specialty, a demanding country may not try an individual who has been extradicted [sic] for any offense other than that for which extradition was granted, unless the alleged offense was committed after extradition. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 [] (1886)." It just so happens that United States v. Rauscher was controlled by a treaty between the United States and Great Britain. Needless to say, there is no treaty involved here. The application is, therefore, without legal support and is Denied.[ Little v. Ciuros 436 U.S. 1301 (1978) ]
