The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland and many other states, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate extradition. A critical aspect is the demand for rendition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation to establish probable cause that the accused committed the offense charged. Maryland law, specifically codified in Criminal Procedure Article, Title 7, Subtitle 4, mirrors the UCEA’s emphasis on the governor’s warrant and supporting affidavits. The demand must include a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by affidavit, or a warrant issued by a magistrate, along with a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Crucially, the demanding state must demonstrate that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. This presence can be established through various means, including direct testimony, circumstantial evidence, or the accused’s own admissions. The focus of the review in the asylum state, in this case Maryland, is not on the guilt or innocence of the accused, but solely on whether the documentation meets the statutory requirements for rendition and whether the accused is the person named in the warrant. A sworn statement from a law enforcement officer in the demanding state, attesting to the accused’s presence in that state when the crime occurred, is a common and accepted method to satisfy this evidentiary burden. Therefore, the most legally sound basis for challenging the extradition from Maryland would be the absence of proof demonstrating the accused’s presence in the demanding state at the time the alleged offense was committed.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted in Maryland (Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 7-1001 et seq.), governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this process involves the documentation required for the demand for extradition. The demanding state must provide an affidavit, a copy of an indictment, or an information supported by proof by deposition taken before a magistrate, accusing the fugitive of having committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence imposed in the event of a conviction. Maryland law, consistent with the UCEA, requires that the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the fugitive must substantially charge the fugitive with having committed a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The accompanying documents must demonstrate that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding jurisdiction and that the person is a fugitive from justice. The presence of a sworn affidavit detailing the alleged criminal conduct, coupled with a certified copy of a warrant issued by a judicial officer of the demanding state, satisfies these foundational requirements for a valid extradition demand. The question posits a scenario where Maryland is the asylum state and Texas is the demanding state. The demand includes a sworn affidavit detailing the alleged offense and a certified copy of a warrant issued by a Texas judge. This combination meets the statutory prerequisites for initiating extradition proceedings under Maryland’s adoption of the UCEA.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Maryland and most other states, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the fundamental basis for extradition. Maryland’s specific statutory framework is found in Title 7, Subtitle 4 of the Criminal Law Article of the Maryland Code. A critical aspect of this process is the governor’s warrant, which is the formal document authorizing the arrest and surrender of a fugitive. The process begins when the demanding state requests extradition, typically by providing documentation that includes an indictment, an information supported by evidence under oath, or a judgment of conviction or sentence. The asylum state’s governor then reviews this request. If the governor finds that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and is a fugitive from justice, the governor will issue a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest. This warrant, often referred to as the governor’s warrant, is the legal instrument that empowers law enforcement to take the accused into custody in the asylum state for the purpose of extradition. The fugitive has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, but the grounds for such a challenge are generally limited to whether the person is the one named in the extradition documents, whether they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether they are a fugitive from justice. The governor’s warrant serves as prima facie evidence of these facts.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Maryland (Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 7-1001 et seq.), governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act involves the role of the Governor. In Maryland, the Governor is vested with the authority to demand the surrender of a fugitive from justice from another state, as well as to issue a warrant for the arrest and surrender of a person found in Maryland who is charged with a crime in another state. This authority is not absolute and is circumscribed by specific legal requirements outlined in the UCEA. For instance, the demand for extradition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person has fled from justice. Furthermore, the person arrested must be brought before a judge or magistrate in Maryland to be informed of the charges and their rights, including the right to challenge the legality of the arrest and extradition. The process requires strict adherence to statutory procedures to ensure due process for the individual sought. The Governor’s warrant is the legal instrument authorizing the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and its issuance is a discretionary act based on the presented documentation and legal compliance.

Maryland’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, Title 7. This act outlines the procedures for demanding and granting extradition between Maryland and other states. A crucial aspect involves the governor’s role. The governor of the demanding state issues a formal written application for extradition, which must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by an affidavit. Alternatively, for fugitives found in Maryland, the governor of Maryland must issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person charged. This warrant is then directed to any peace officer or judge of Maryland. Upon apprehension, the accused is brought before a judge or magistrate who determines if the person is the one named in the warrant and if they are charged with a crime in the demanding state. The judge must also ascertain if the person is a fugitive from justice. If these conditions are met, the judge will commit the accused to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, allowing time for the arrest of the person under the warrant of the governor of Maryland. However, if the accused is not arrested under the governor’s warrant within that period, or if they are not delivered to the proper officer of the demanding state, they may be discharged. The governor of Maryland can also extend this period if circumstances warrant. The core principle is ensuring that the demanding state’s process is followed and that the individual is indeed the person sought for a crime in that jurisdiction.

Maryland’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Title 7, Subtitle 4 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key aspect is the demand for extradition. When a person is charged with a crime in Maryland and flees to another state, the Governor of Maryland may issue a formal demand for their return. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, as outlined in Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 7-404. The statute requires that the demand be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a committing magistrate, showing that the person has been charged with a crime in Maryland. Crucially, the demand must also include a copy of the warrant issued upon such indictment, information, or complaint. Furthermore, the statute mandates that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice after or before sentence. The process emphasizes due process and the necessity of proper legal documentation to ensure the lawful transfer of an individual across state lines for prosecution or to serve a sentence. The specific requirement for a copy of the warrant issued upon the charging instrument is a foundational element of the demand.

Maryland’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, Title 7. This act outlines the procedures for demanding and granting extradition of fugitives from justice. A critical aspect is the role of the Governor of Maryland in issuing the arrest warrant. The demanding state must provide specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment found, an information supported by evidence, or a judgment of conviction or sentence. This documentation must be accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, the documents must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime in the demanding state. If the person is found in Maryland and is charged with a crime committed in another state, the Governor of Maryland may issue a warrant for their arrest. The process involves the Governor’s review of the documentation from the demanding state to ensure compliance with the Act and constitutional requirements. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The Governor’s decision to issue the rendition warrant is based on the presented evidence and the legal requirements for extradition. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act aims to ensure a fair and orderly process for interstate rendition while safeguarding the rights of the accused.

Maryland’s extradition process, governed by statutes such as Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 7-101 et seq., and influenced by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA) adopted by many states, outlines the procedures for surrendering individuals charged with crimes in other jurisdictions. When a person is sought for a crime committed in another state, the Governor of Maryland, upon receiving a proper requisition from the executive authority of the demanding state, must issue a warrant for the arrest of the alleged fugitive. This warrant is directed to any peace officer or conservator of the peace in Maryland. The arrested individual then has the right to be brought before a judge or court of record in Maryland. At this hearing, the accused can challenge the legality of the arrest and the validity of the extradition proceedings. The primary grounds for challenging extradition include demonstrating that the person is not the one named in the requisition, that the person was not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, or that the indictment or information is insufficient to charge a crime. The burden of proof rests on the demanding state to establish these elements. If the judge finds that the person is lawfully subject to extradition, they will be committed to jail to await the arrival of the agent from the demanding state. If the person is not arrested within a specified period, typically 30 days under the UCEA provisions adopted by Maryland, they may be discharged. However, the demanding state can seek an extension. The process emphasizes due process for the individual while facilitating interstate rendition of fugitives.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides the foundational basis for extradition. Maryland’s statutory framework, found in Title 12 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code, specifically addresses the process. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state can issue a warrant for their arrest. The asylum state’s governor must then review the demand and issue a governor’s warrant if the documentation is in order. The accused has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. This writ allows for judicial review to ensure that the person is indeed the one named in the warrant, that they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and that the demand conforms to the statutory requirements. Maryland law, consistent with the UCEA, permits the arrested individual to be held for a reasonable time to await the issuance of the governor’s warrant, typically not exceeding 30 days unless extended by court order or if the individual waives extradition. The question focuses on the specific period of detention permissible before the governor’s warrant must be issued or the individual released, absent a waiver. Maryland Criminal Procedure § 12-304(a) states that a person arrested under a warrant issued by the governor of Maryland may be committed to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days. This period is a crucial aspect of due process in extradition proceedings, balancing the need for the demanding state to effectuate rendition with the fugitive’s right to challenge their detention.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Maryland, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused of crimes across state lines. A key aspect of this act concerns the demand for extradition. For a demand to be valid, it must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state. This document must charge the accused with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the accused has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice after conviction. Maryland law, specifically Maryland Code Criminal Procedure Article 5, § 3-105, outlines these requirements. In the scenario presented, the Governor of Pennsylvania is seeking the extradition of Mr. Silas Croft. Pennsylvania’s demand is supported by a sworn affidavit made before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which specifically charges Mr. Croft with the commission of a felony offense within that county. This affidavit is certified by the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth. This meets the statutory requirement for a valid extradition demand, as it is supported by a charging document (the affidavit) from the demanding state that clearly alleges a crime was committed there by the fugitive. The process does not require a conviction or sentence at this stage, only a charge.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Mr. Alistair Finch, who is alleged to have committed a crime in Maryland and has fled to California. Maryland seeks his return. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. §§ 5-201 et seq.), governs interstate rendition. For extradition to be permissible, the asylum state (California) must find that the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state (Maryland). This requires a formal accusation, such as an indictment or an information, supported by an affidavit before a magistrate. The UCEA also mandates that the demanding state’s governor issue a formal demand for the fugitive’s arrest. The asylum state’s governor then reviews this demand and issues a warrant for the fugitive’s apprehension. The fugitive has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. In such a proceeding, the asylum state court will typically examine whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether they are the person named in the rendition warrant, and whether they are a fugitive from justice. The asylum state cannot inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused; that is a matter for the demanding state’s courts. Therefore, California authorities, upon receiving a valid demand from Maryland, would proceed with apprehending Mr. Finch based on the governor’s warrant, provided the documentation meets UCEA requirements. The question asks about the immediate legal basis for California’s authority to apprehend Mr. Finch. This basis stems from the rendition warrant issued by the Governor of California, which is predicated on Maryland’s formal demand and the existence of a substantial charge.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act involves the requirements for the rendition warrant issued by the demanding state’s executive authority. Maryland law, specifically codified in Article 2, Section 10 of the Maryland Code, requires that the application for extradition include an indictment found in the demanding state or an affidavit made before a magistrate there, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, this indictment or affidavit must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. The warrant itself must also be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or affidavit, and if the accused has been convicted, by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The demanding state must also provide assurances that the person sought has committed a crime within its jurisdiction, and that the person sought is a fugitive from justice. The process requires that the person sought be afforded an opportunity to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention through a writ of habeas corpus. This writ allows for a review of whether the demanding state has met the statutory requirements for extradition, including proper documentation and evidence of the fugitive status. The role of the Maryland Governor is to issue a rendition warrant upon finding that the documents conform to the requirements of the law, thereby authorizing the arrest and transfer of the accused to the demanding state.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Maryland through Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 6-301 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes between states. A key aspect of this act concerns the governor’s discretionary power in granting or denying an extradition request. While the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act is largely designed to facilitate cooperation between states, it does not mandate that a governor must grant every request. The governor of the asylum state (in this case, Maryland) has the authority to review the request and deny it if certain legal or procedural deficiencies are identified, or if it is determined to be against the public interest. For instance, if the demanding state fails to present a proper charging document, if the person sought is not substantially charged with a crime, or if there are significant procedural irregularities, the governor may deny the extradition. The concept of comity between states also plays a role, but it does not supersede the governor’s ultimate legal authority to assess the validity and propriety of an extradition request under the UCEA. Therefore, a governor can deny an extradition request, even if the demanding state has initiated the process.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Maryland, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s role and the documentation required for a valid rendition warrant. Maryland law, specifically mirroring the UCEA, requires that the demanding state’s executive authority (Governor) issue a formal application for the fugitive. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information charging the fugitive with a crime, supported by an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, or by a sworn statement of the prosecutor. Additionally, the application must include a copy of the warrant issued by a judge or magistrate of the demanding state, which is to be executed in the asylum state. The asylum state’s governor then reviews this application. If the application is in order and the person is found in Maryland, the Maryland governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The question probes the essential documentation from the demanding state that must accompany the governor’s application to initiate the extradition process in Maryland. The correct documentation includes the indictment or information, the supporting affidavit, and the warrant issued in the demanding state.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Maryland, outlines the process for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect is the governor’s role in issuing an arrest warrant upon a proper application from the demanding state. The application must include a formal demand, an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, and a copy of the charging document. Furthermore, the demanding state must certify that the person was present in that state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. If the person is arrested on a fugitive warrant, they have the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. In Maryland, the scope of this challenge is generally limited to verifying that the person is indeed the one named in the warrant, that the warrant is valid on its face, and that the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The Maryland courts will not delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused or the merits of the case in the demanding jurisdiction. Therefore, if the demanding state, in this case, Florida, provides a properly authenticated copy of an indictment and certifies the presence of the accused at the time of the offense, Maryland’s governor can issue the rendition warrant. The fact that the accused has since left Florida does not negate their presence at the time the crime was allegedly committed, which is the jurisdictional basis for the extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Maryland and codified in Title 7 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code, governs interstate extradition. A critical aspect of this process involves the demand from the demanding state and the subsequent arrest and appearance before a judge in the asylum state, Maryland. For an extradition to proceed, the demanding state must present a formal demand that includes a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by evidence, or a complaint made before a magistrate, showing that the accused has committed a crime. Crucially, this documentation must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or the sentence imposed, if the person has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice after conviction. If the person has been convicted and escaped, the UCEA requires proof of the conviction and the sentence. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 7-104 specifically addresses the issuance of a warrant by the Governor of Maryland upon receiving a proper demand. The demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person with a crime, and, if the person has been convicted, a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The question describes a scenario where an individual has been convicted in Delaware and subsequently fled to Maryland. The demand from Delaware includes a certified copy of the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed. This documentation satisfies the requirements for an extradition demand under the UCEA and Maryland law because it proves both the conviction and the sentence, which are necessary when the fugitive has already been convicted. The Governor of Maryland can then issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes between states. A crucial aspect of this act is the governor’s role in issuing or denying an extradition warrant. In Maryland, as in most UCEA states, the governor must determine if the individual is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and if the documents submitted by the demanding state are in order. The UCEA requires that the person sought be substantially charged by indictment or by an affidavit before a magistrate. The demanding state’s executive authority must also certify the accuracy of the supporting documents. If these prerequisites are met, the governor of the asylum state (Maryland in this scenario) must issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The governor’s discretion is generally limited to ensuring compliance with the UCEA’s procedural requirements and the constitutional mandate of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires fugitives to be delivered up upon demand of the executive authority of the state from which they fled. The governor cannot refuse extradition based on policy disagreements with the demanding state’s laws or the perceived fairness of the judicial proceedings in that state, unless the documents themselves are demonstrably fraudulent or insufficient to establish a lawful basis for extradition. Therefore, if the governor of Maryland reviews the documents from California and finds that the fugitive is indeed substantially charged with a felony under California law and that the supporting documents, including the indictment and the demand from the California governor, are properly certified and conform to the UCEA requirements, then the governor is obligated to issue the warrant. The governor’s personal opinion on the merits of the case or the fugitive’s potential defense is not a valid basis for denying extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. Specifically, Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 5-201 et seq. governs this process. A critical aspect of extradition is the certification of the rendition demand by the executive authority of the demanding state. This certification ensures that the individual sought is substantially charged with a crime. The demanding state’s governor must issue a warrant, which is then presented to the executive authority of the asylum state. The asylum state’s governor then reviews the demand. If the demand is in order and the person is found to be the one named in the warrant, the governor of the asylum state issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant is typically directed to a peace officer in Maryland. The process does not require a prior indictment by a grand jury in the demanding state; an information or affidavit alleging the commission of a crime is sufficient, provided it is properly certified by the demanding state’s executive. The question probes the minimum requirement for the charging document from the demanding state for a valid extradition request under Maryland law, which aligns with the UCEA’s provisions. The UCEA allows for an information or an affidavit to serve as the charging instrument, provided it is sworn to before a magistrate or court of the demanding state and is accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, if such is the basis for the demand. Therefore, a sworn information or affidavit is a valid basis for an extradition demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Maryland as codified in Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, Title 7, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes between states. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person, and a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 7-103 outlines these requirements. The demanding state must also certify that the person was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. If the accused is arrested on a governor’s warrant, they have the right to be brought before a judge of a court of record for an examination. During this examination, the judge must inform the accused of the charge, the state from which they are sought, and their right to demand proof of their identity and the charge. The judge then determines if the person is the one named in the warrant and if the documents are in order, as per UCEA principles. The focus of this examination is not on guilt or innocence, but on whether the person is legally subject to extradition. The governor of Maryland then issues a warrant for the apprehension of the person to be delivered to the agent of the demanding state. The concept of “presence” in the demanding state at the time of the offense is a key element that must be established by the demanding state’s documentation. If the accused is found to be substantially the same person named in the warrant and the documentation is legally sufficient, the governor may issue the warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland, outlines the process for extraditing individuals accused of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act concerns the governor’s role and the requirements for a valid rendition warrant. When a person is charged with a crime in a demanding state and flees to Maryland, the demanding state’s governor must issue a formal requisition. This requisition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person with a crime. The UCEA also mandates that the person sought must be named in the warrant, and the warrant must be signed by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, the person must be substantially charged with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Maryland law, specifically codified in Criminal Procedure Article, Title 6, Subtitle 2, mirrors these UCEA provisions. The governor of Maryland reviews the requisition and, if it conforms to the law, issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant must also be accompanied by the necessary documentation from the demanding state. The question hinges on the governor’s authority to issue a rendition warrant based on a charge initiated by a criminal information rather than an indictment or affidavit, when the UCEA and Maryland’s implementation thereof generally require one of the latter. While some states might have minor variations or judicial interpretations, the core requirement for a valid rendition warrant under the UCEA and its Maryland adoption is a formal charging document like an indictment or a sworn affidavit. A criminal information, typically filed by a prosecutor without a grand jury indictment, is not universally recognized as a sufficient basis for extradition under the strict wording of the UCEA as adopted by most states, including Maryland, for the initial requisition. Therefore, the governor would likely lack the authority to issue a rendition warrant based solely on a criminal information without further supporting documentation that meets the statutory requirements.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. A key aspect is the role of the governor’s warrant. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of a demanding state, the governor of the asylum state (Maryland in this case) must review the documentation. If the documentation is found to be in order and establishes probable cause, the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant is the legal basis for the fugitive’s apprehension and detention in Maryland pending removal. The UCEA, as codified in Maryland, specifies that the warrant shall substantially recite the facts necessary to the issuance of a proper rendition warrant. This includes the name of the person sought, the state from which the person fled, and the crime charged. The governor’s warrant is a critical executive act that initiates the formal extradition process within Maryland. It is distinct from an arrest warrant issued by a court, although an arrest may have occurred prior to the governor’s warrant based on an arrest warrant issued by the demanding state. The governor’s review ensures that the demand complies with the UCEA and constitutional requirements, preventing frivolous or improper extraditions.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland and many other states, governs the process of interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for the demanding state to prove that the person sought is substantially the same person named in the rendition warrant. This is often referred to as the identity issue. In Maryland, as in most UCEA states, the governor of the asylum state, upon receiving a rendition request from the demanding state, must issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive then has the right to challenge their identity and the legality of the warrant. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, Section 7-301 and following sections outline these procedures. The core legal standard for challenging extradition in the asylum state, like Maryland, is not to relitigate the guilt or innocence of the accused but solely to determine if the person arrested is the one charged in the demanding state and if the proper procedures have been followed. The demanding state must provide sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the person sought is indeed the fugitive. This evidence can include affidavits, warrants, or other documents. If the asylum state’s court finds that the identity is not sufficiently established, or if the person is not substantially the same individual, then the extradition can be denied. The burden of proof rests with the demanding state to demonstrate identity, not on the fugitive to prove they are not the person.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland, outlines the process for extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect is the requirement for a governor’s warrant to initiate extradition. The demanding state must present evidence that the accused is substantially charged with a crime in that state and that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime. Maryland law, specifically codified in Title 7 of the Criminal Procedure Article, mirrors these UCEA provisions. When a person is arrested in Maryland on a warrant issued by the governor of another state, the individual can be held for a period not exceeding thirty days. If, within this period, the person has not been arrested and delivered to the custody of the demanding state, or if the person has not been released on bail, they can be discharged. However, if the person is still sought by the demanding state and the governor’s warrant has been issued, the individual can be held for a longer period, up to ninety days, to allow for proper arrangements for their transfer. The key legal principle is that the arrestee must be afforded an opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention, typically through a writ of habeas corpus, to ensure that all statutory and constitutional requirements for extradition have been met. This includes verifying the existence of a valid warrant, the charge, and presence in the demanding state.

Maryland’s extradition process is governed by both federal law (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 209, Section 3182) and its own Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Title 12 of the Maryland Code. The core principle is that a person charged with a crime in one state, who has fled to another, can be extradited back to the charging state. The process typically begins with a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state to the executive authority of the asylum state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. The demanding state must also provide a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment or information. The Governor of Maryland, upon receiving such a demand, will review the documentation. If the documents are in order and the person is indeed charged with a crime in the demanding state, the Governor will issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive is then arrested and brought before a judge or court in Maryland. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention, typically through a writ of habeas corpus. The court will then determine if the person is the one named in the warrant, if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and if the demanding state has complied with the formal requirements of extradition. If these conditions are met, the court will order the person committed to jail, to await extradition. The law also provides for temporary custody and waivers of extradition. A person may waive their right to formal extradition proceedings, allowing for a swifter return to the demanding state. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act in Maryland, specifically referencing Article 12-606 of the Maryland Code, outlines the procedures for arrest prior to requisition and for the commitment of the accused. It also details the process for holding the accused when the indictment or information is substantially charged. The key is that the asylum state’s role is primarily ministerial, ensuring that the demanding state has followed the correct legal procedures and that the person is indeed the subject of the charges. Maryland law does not permit the asylum state to inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused at this stage; that determination is for the courts of the demanding state.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted in Maryland, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the foundation for extradition between states, often referred to as interstate rendition. Maryland law, specifically codified in Title 7, Subtitle 1 of the Criminal Procedure Article, mirrors the UCEA. A crucial aspect of this process involves the issuance of a Governor’s Warrant. For an extradition to be valid, the demanding state must present a sworn indictment, information supported by a deposition, or an affidavit charging the accused with a crime. The Governor of Maryland must then review this documentation and, if satisfied that the person is a fugitive from justice and charged with a crime in the demanding state, issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the demanding state’s charging document, properly authenticated by the executive authority of that state. The person arrested has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the scope of this challenge is limited to verifying that the person is indeed the one named in the warrant, that they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and that they are a fugitive from justice. The demanding state must prove that the accused was present in its jurisdiction at the time the crime was committed. If the accused is not found to be substantially charged or is not a fugitive, they are discharged. The focus of the habeas corpus proceeding is not to retry the guilt or innocence of the accused but to ensure the formal requirements of extradition are met.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Maryland, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes between states. A crucial aspect of this act involves the documentation required for a valid rendition warrant. Specifically, Maryland law, mirroring the UCEA, requires that the demanding state’s governor issue a rendition warrant. This warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information or affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with the commission of a crime. Furthermore, the indictment, information, or affidavit must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the accused has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice. The statute also mandates that the indictment, information, or affidavit, or any document accompanying the charge, must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. This authentication ensures the integrity and legitimacy of the documents presented for extradition. The question tests the understanding of these foundational documentation requirements for a rendition warrant under Maryland’s adoption of the UCEA, focusing on the necessity of authenticated supporting legal instruments.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by Maryland, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. Maryland’s statutory framework for extradition is primarily found in Title 7 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Specifically, § 7-101 outlines the governor’s authority to demand a fugitive from justice from another state, and § 7-102 details the governor’s duty to deliver a fugitive from justice to the demanding state upon proper requisition. A key aspect of extradition law involves the procedural safeguards afforded to the accused. When an individual is arrested in Maryland on a governor’s warrant issued by another state, they have the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for such a challenge are limited, as established by case law interpreting the UCEA and federal constitutional principles. Generally, a court will not inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused; rather, the inquiry is confined to whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person is the one named in the warrant, and whether the warrant is in proper form. In the scenario presented, the individual, Mr. Aris Thorne, was arrested in Maryland based on a governor’s warrant from Delaware. The warrant alleges he committed a felony offense in Delaware. Mr. Thorne seeks to challenge his extradition. Under Maryland law and established extradition principles, the scope of a habeas corpus review in an extradition case is narrowly focused. The court’s primary duty is to ensure that the demanding state has met the procedural requirements and that the individual is indeed the person sought for a crime in the demanding jurisdiction. The question of whether Mr. Thorne actually committed the crime, or the strength of the evidence against him, is a matter for the courts in Delaware to decide, not the Maryland court conducting the extradition hearing. Therefore, the Maryland court’s review would not delve into the evidence of Thorne’s guilt or innocence. The proper grounds for challenging the extradition would focus on procedural defects or whether Thorne is the person named in the warrant.

Maryland’s extradition process is governed by both federal law, primarily the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and codified in Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, Title 7, and state-specific procedural rules. When a fugitive is located in Maryland and sought by another state, the demanding state must submit a formal application for extradition. This application typically includes an indictment, an information supported by a deposition, or a judgment of conviction or sentence, accompanied by a copy of the charging document and an arrest warrant. The Maryland Governor, upon receipt of the application and confirmation that it substantially charges a crime and that the person sought is the one named, issues a Governor’s Warrant. This warrant authorizes the arrest of the fugitive. Once arrested, the fugitive has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The scope of review in a habeas corpus proceeding in Maryland is limited. It primarily focuses on whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the extradition documents are in order, and whether the person is the one named in the warrant. It does not delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused. Therefore, if the documents are regular on their face and properly authenticated, and the person is identified as the fugitive sought, the Governor’s Warrant is generally upheld, and extradition proceeds. The question asks about the primary legal basis for challenging an extradition warrant in Maryland after arrest. This challenge is rooted in the fundamental right to liberty and due process, typically asserted through a writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus allows a court to review the legality of a person’s detention. In the context of extradition, this review is specifically focused on whether the procedural and substantive requirements for extradition have been met, as outlined in the UCEA and Maryland law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Maryland and many other states, governs the process of interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act concerns the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a fugitive. For an extradition to be lawful, the requisitioning state must present specific documentation to the governor of the asylum state. Maryland law, mirroring the UCEA, requires that the requisitioning state’s governor certify that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that the accused is now a fugitive from justice. This certification is a foundational requirement for the governor to issue an arrest warrant. Without this certification, the governor lacks the legal basis to authorize the arrest and subsequent rendition. The presence of the accused in the demanding state at the time of the offense is a jurisdictional prerequisite for prosecution in that state, and the UCEA mandates that this be formally attested by the demanding governor.

Maryland’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Title 7, Subtitle 1 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code. This act outlines the procedures for demanding and surrendering persons charged with crimes in other states. A crucial aspect is the governor’s role in issuing or waiving extradition. When a person is arrested in Maryland on a fugitive warrant issued by a Maryland court based on a demand from another state, they have the right to challenge the legality of their detention. This challenge is typically made through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition are narrow, focusing on whether the person is the one named in the rendition warrant, whether they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether they are a fugitive from justice. The demanding state must provide documentation, including an indictment, information, or affidavit, that substantially charges the accused with a crime. The governor of Maryland reviews this documentation and the application for extradition. If the governor finds the documentation sufficient and the person is indeed a fugitive, they will issue a rendition warrant, authorizing the surrender of the individual to the authorities of the demanding state. The governor can also waive extradition if the demanding state does not seek return of the individual or if the individual has already served time for the offense in Maryland. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act aims to ensure efficient and fair interstate rendition of fugitives while preserving the rights of the accused.