The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a governor’s warrant, which must be supported by specific documentation. Oklahoma Statutes Title 22, Section 1141.5, details these requirements. For a person arrested on a charge of crime committed in another state, the demanding state must provide an affidavit, information, or indictment charging the accused with a crime. This charging document must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment, information, or complaint. Additionally, the demanding state must furnish a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person has fled from justice and is a fugitive from justice. This statement is typically the governor’s warrant itself. The critical element is that the demanding state’s documentation must demonstrate that the individual is formally accused of a crime in that state and has fled. The absence of a sworn affidavit or a properly certified copy of the charging instrument, along with the governor’s statement of flight, would render the extradition request invalid under Oklahoma law. Therefore, the core requirement is the presentation of a properly authenticated charging document and proof of flight.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma and codified at 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the demand for extradition from a demanding state. For a valid demand to be honored, it must meet specific statutory requirements outlined in the UCEA. These requirements ensure due process and prevent frivolous or unlawful detainment. The demanding state must provide a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint before a magistrate, charging the accused with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Additionally, 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. Crucially, the documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state, meaning the Governor of that state must certify their genuineness. If the person is sought for a crime committed in the demanding state but is found in another state, the documents must include an affidavit or sworn statement from the prosecutor or district attorney of the demanding jurisdiction detailing the facts and circumstances of the alleged offense. The absence of any of these authenticated documents, particularly the governor’s certification of the accusatory instrument and the proof of conviction or escape, renders the demand procedurally defective under Oklahoma law, precluding extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma in Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 1141.1 et seq., governs the process of interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act concerns the documentation required for a valid rendition demand. Specifically, Section 1141.6 of the Oklahoma Statutes outlines the necessary accompanying documents. This statute mandates that the demanding state’s executive authority must furnish an affidavit, a copy of an indictment, or an information, supported by proof by deposition, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, it requires a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the accused has been convicted and has escaped or fled from the justice of the state. The question probes the specific requirement for a person who has been convicted and subsequently fled. In such a scenario, the demanding state must present a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. This distinguishes it from cases where an individual is merely accused but not yet convicted. The other options present documents that might be relevant in other stages or types of extradition proceedings but are not the primary or sole requirement for a convicted fugitive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by Oklahoma, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. Oklahoma Statute Title 22, Section 1141.5 outlines the essential components of this demand. It mandates that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or by an information and affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction and sentence. Crucially, these documents must charge the fugitive with the commission of a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the statute requires that the indictment, information, or judgment of conviction must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state, attesting to its authenticity under the seal of the state. The purpose of these strict requirements is to ensure that the person sought is indeed a fugitive from justice, charged with a crime in the demanding jurisdiction, and that the request is made through proper legal channels, safeguarding against arbitrary detentions and ensuring due process. Without these foundational documents properly authenticated, the governor of Oklahoma lacks the legal basis to issue a rendition warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Oklahoma and other states, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused of crimes. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must include specific documentation. This documentation typically consists of a copy of the indictment or information, or a judgment of conviction and sentence, if the person has been convicted. It also requires an affidavit or other showing of probable cause. The demanding state’s executive authority, usually the governor, must issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. Upon arrest, the fugitive is brought before a judicial officer in the asylum state. This judicial officer’s role is to determine if the person arrested is the person named in the warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The statute does not mandate that the asylum state’s prosecutor be involved in this initial judicial determination of identity and charge. The focus is on the executive demand and the fugitive’s presence in the demanding state when the crime was allegedly committed. The UCEA prioritizes the smooth and efficient transfer of fugitives between states to ensure justice is served, while also providing certain procedural safeguards for the accused. The question hinges on understanding the specific documents required for a valid extradition demand under the UCEA, as implemented in Oklahoma law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A key aspect is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, including an indictment, an information, or a sworn affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. Crucially, the UCEA, as interpreted by Oklahoma courts, mandates that the demanding state’s governor must issue a formal rendition warrant. This warrant serves as the legal basis for the arrest and transfer of the fugitive. The affidavit or sworn statement must establish probable cause for the alleged offense. If the demanding state fails to provide these authenticated documents, or if the documentation is deficient in establishing probable cause or identifying the individual as a fugitive from justice in that state, the governor of the asylum state (Oklahoma in this case) may refuse to issue the rendition warrant. The process emphasizes adherence to due process and the constitutional rights of the accused, ensuring that extradition is not sought on frivolous grounds or without proper legal basis. The governor’s review of the demand and supporting documents is a critical gatekeeping function to prevent unlawful interstate rendition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. Key to this process is the governor’s warrant, which must be supported by sufficient evidence. Oklahoma law, specifically Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 1141.1 et seq., details these requirements. The demanding state must present a complaint, information, or indictment charging the accused with a crime, along with an affidavit made before a person authorized to administer oaths, showing the facts and circumstances constituting the charged offense. Additionally, a copy of the charging document and the affidavit must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. This authentication ensures the integrity of the documents presented to the asylum state’s governor. For a fugitive to be extradited from Oklahoma, the governor of Oklahoma must be satisfied that the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and has fled from justice. The supporting documents must clearly establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime. The absence of proper authentication or a failure to demonstrate that the accused is substantially charged and has fled from justice can be grounds for denying extradition. Therefore, the correct authentication of the charging documents and supporting affidavits by the executive authority of the demanding state is a prerequisite for the governor’s warrant to be legally issued in Oklahoma.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma through Title 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A key aspect of this act concerns the demand for extradition. For a demand to be legally sufficient, it must meet specific requirements outlined in the UCEA and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3182). These requirements include an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime committed in the demanding state, and that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The demand must also be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, duly authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, the person sought must be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. When a person is arrested in Oklahoma on a fugitive warrant, they are entitled to a hearing to determine if they are the person named in the warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The governor of Oklahoma has the discretion to issue a rendition warrant based on a proper demand. However, the UCEA also provides for the arrest of a person charged in another state without a warrant, upon information and belief, provided that a warrant has already been issued for their arrest in the demanding state. This initial arrest is provisional, and a formal demand must follow within a specified timeframe. If the demanding state fails to make a timely demand, the arrested individual must be discharged. The question asks about the required document accompanying an arrest warrant issued by the demanding state’s governor when the individual is arrested in Oklahoma without a prior warrant. This scenario falls under the provisions for arrest on information and belief, where a warrant has already been issued in the demanding state. The UCEA, specifically 22 O.S. § 1141.11, states that when a person is arrested on information and belief, the arresting officer must have received from the demanding state’s executive authority a warrant for the person’s arrest, or an affidavit made before a magistrate there, substantially charging the person with a crime. The affidavit is crucial for establishing probable cause in the absence of a direct warrant from the demanding state’s governor at the moment of the initial arrest in Oklahoma.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. Under 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., a person arrested in Oklahoma on a charge of committing a crime in another state must be brought before a judge. The judge must inform the accused of the demand for their surrender, the crime charged, and their right to demand proper extradition proceedings. The accused may waive extradition, either by written statement or by appearing before the judge and verbally waiving. If the accused does not waive extradition, the judge will hold a hearing to determine if the person is the one named in the rendition warrant and if the person committed the crime in the demanding state. The burden of proof rests on the demanding state to demonstrate these facts. The demanding state must present a valid rendition warrant issued by the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction and sentence, authenticated by the executive authority. Oklahoma law, specifically 22 O.S. § 1141.10, clarifies that the guilt or innocence of the accused is not to be inquired into by the demanding court. Therefore, if a person is arrested in Oklahoma on a warrant from Texas for alleged grand larceny, and they are indeed the person named in the warrant and the warrant is properly authenticated, the Oklahoma court’s role is limited to verifying these procedural aspects, not the factual guilt or innocence of the alleged larceny. The question hinges on the scope of inquiry permitted by Oklahoma’s extradition statutes.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by Oklahoma statutes, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. Specifically, Oklahoma law, found in Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 35, addresses the requirements for a valid rendition warrant. For a governor’s warrant of rendition to be legally sufficient to compel the return of a fugitive from another state to Oklahoma, it must be accompanied by specific documentation. This documentation typically includes an affidavit, a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint charging the fugitive with a crime, and a copy of the warrant issued by the demanding state’s judicial officer. Furthermore, the UCEA, and thus Oklahoma’s implementation, requires that the person sought be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The governor’s warrant must also be accompanied by proof that the person sought was within the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime and that they are a fugitive from justice. The question presents a scenario where a governor’s warrant from Oklahoma is presented to authorities in California for the return of an individual. The warrant is supported by an affidavit and a copy of the Oklahoma indictment. However, it lacks a sworn statement from the demanding state’s executive and proof of the fugitive’s presence in Oklahoma at the time of the alleged offense. Under Oklahoma law and the UCEA, the absence of proof that the individual was present in Oklahoma when the crime was committed is a critical deficiency that would render the rendition process invalid. The demanding state’s executive’s sworn statement is also a requirement, though the question focuses on the presence element. Therefore, the deficiency in proving presence is the primary legal impediment to extradition in this scenario.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted in Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1141.1 et seq.), governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the governor’s role in issuing warrants and the requirements for a valid demand from the demanding state. When a person is arrested in Oklahoma on a warrant issued by a judge of a demanding state, the demanding state must provide certain documentation to support the demand for extradition. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or accusation, along with a warrant. Furthermore, the demanding state must demonstrate that the person sought is the same individual named in the warrant and that the person is a fugitive from justice, meaning they have fled from the demanding state to avoid prosecution or punishment. Oklahoma law, consistent with the UCEA, requires the governor to be satisfied that the demand is in order and that the person is a fugitive. The affidavit from the prosecuting attorney serves as a key piece of evidence to establish the basis for the charges and the fugitive status. Without a proper affidavit from the prosecuting attorney in the demanding state, which attests to the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged offense and the individual’s fugitive status, the governor of Oklahoma may not be sufficiently satisfied to issue the rendition warrant. This affidavit is critical for establishing probable cause and ensuring that the extradition request is not frivolous or politically motivated.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect is the demand from the demanding state. For a valid demand, the UCEA, as codified in Oklahoma Statutes Title 22, Section 1141.1 et seq., requires specific documentation. This documentation must include a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the accused with a crime, sworn to by the complainant, and accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued thereon. Furthermore, the demanding state’s executive authority must 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. The question focuses on the procedural requirement for the *accused* to be present in the demanding state when the crime was committed, which is a prerequisite for extradition. The absence of a sworn affidavit from a witness to the crime in the demanding state, while potentially relevant to the underlying criminal charge, does not invalidate the extradition demand itself if the other statutory requirements are met. The demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, and the executive authority must certify presence and fugitive status. The affidavit mentioned in the options refers to the charging document itself, not a separate affidavit from a witness to the crime’s commission. Therefore, the absence of a separate witness affidavit is not a fatal flaw to the extradition demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to demanding states. A key provision, mirrored in 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., addresses the situation where a person is arrested in Oklahoma on a charge of being a fugitive from justice from another state. Upon such an arrest, the accused must be taken before a judge or magistrate. The law mandates that the judge inform the accused of the accusation, the demand for surrender, and their right to demand legal counsel. Crucially, the accused has the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. This writ is the primary legal mechanism for challenging the legality of the detention. The UCEA and Oklahoma statutes specify that if the habeas corpus petition is denied, or if no petition is filed within a certain timeframe (often specified by court rules or the statute itself, though the core right is to seek it), the accused may be delivered to the agent of the demanding state. The process is designed to ensure due process while facilitating the return of fugitives. The role of the Oklahoma court is to verify that the demanding state’s documentation is in order and that the person arrested is indeed the person sought for a crime committed in the demanding state, as per the demands of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the federal extradition statute (18 U.S.C. § 3182). The governor’s warrant is the executive authority to deliver the person.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. Oklahoma law, specifically Title 22 O.S. § 1141.4, outlines these requirements. The demanding governor must issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the accused has been convicted, must also be provided and authenticated. The purpose of these stringent documentation requirements is to ensure that the person sought is indeed the subject of a lawful criminal proceeding in the demanding state and to prevent arbitrary arrests and transfers. Without this authenticated documentation, the governor of the asylum state, in this case, Oklahoma, is not legally obligated to surrender the individual. The process emphasizes due process and the protection of individuals from unlawful detainment or rendition. The governor of Oklahoma has the discretion to refuse extradition if the documentation is insufficient or if the individual demonstrates they are not the person named in the warrant or that the charge is not a felony. The authentication ensures the integrity of the documents presented.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma and codified in Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s warrant. Upon receiving a demand for extradition from an asylum state’s governor, the Oklahoma governor must review the accompanying documents. If the documents appear to be in order and establish probable cause that the person sought is the one charged with the crime in the demanding state, the governor will issue a rendition warrant. This warrant is the legal instrument that authorizes the arrest and detention of the fugitive within Oklahoma for the purpose of delivering them to the demanding state. The warrant must be based on an indictment, an information supported by a deposition, or a complaint and an affidavit, all properly authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The governor’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to ensure that the demand complies with statutory requirements and that there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the fugitive’s presence in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense. The issuance of this warrant triggers the next phase of the extradition process, including the fugitive’s opportunity to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma and codified in Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key aspect is the governor’s authority to issue a rendition warrant. For a fugitive to be extradited, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information or affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with a crime. This charging document must substantially charge an offense under the laws of the demanding state. Additionally, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of probation or parole. The demanding state must also provide a statement that the person sought is a fugitive from justice. Oklahoma law, specifically 22 O.S. § 1141.5, requires the Governor to satisfy himself that the demand substantially charges an offense under the laws of the demanding state. This is a critical review function. If the demanding state is New Mexico, and the fugitive is charged with aggravated battery under New Mexico law, the Oklahoma Governor must verify that the New Mexico charge is a recognized criminal offense in New Mexico. The process does not involve a de novo review of the evidence or a determination of guilt or innocence, but rather a procedural check to ensure the demand meets the statutory requirements. The governor’s role is to ensure the demand is formally correct and alleges a crime. The fugitive’s identity and the fact that they are a fugitive from justice are also prerequisites. The question focuses on the Governor’s specific duty regarding the charging document.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma as Title 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must include specific documentation to support the accusation of a crime. Oklahoma law, mirroring the UCEA, mandates that the application for requisition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, an information or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person with a crime. Furthermore, the demanding state’s executive authority must certify that the person is a fugitive from justice. The statute also requires that the person sought be named and described in the warrant. The question centers on the sufficiency of the documentation presented by the demanding state to initiate extradition proceedings in Oklahoma. If the affidavit is not sworn before a magistrate, or if it fails to substantially charge a crime recognized under the laws of the demanding state, or if the demand lacks the executive authority’s certification, then the extradition process can be challenged. The absence of a sworn affidavit before a magistrate, as required by 22 O.S. § 1141.5, renders the demand legally insufficient to support an extradition warrant in Oklahoma.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state can seek their return. Oklahoma Statute Title 22, Section 1141.1 et seq. outlines the procedures. A crucial aspect is the Governor’s Warrant, which is the legal instrument authorizing the arrest and detention of the accused in the asylum state, pending their delivery to the demanding state. This warrant must be supported by a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person with a crime, and a copy of the warrant issued in the demanding state. The accused is typically afforded a hearing in the asylum state to challenge the legality of the arrest and the validity of the extradition proceedings. This hearing is not a trial on the merits of the underlying charges but rather focuses on whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, is the person named in the warrant, and has fled from justice. The burden of proof rests on the demanding state to demonstrate these elements. A failure to establish any of these elements can result in the dismissal of the extradition request. The role of the Governor of Oklahoma is to review the documentation and issue the warrant if all legal requirements are met. The law emphasizes the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. This documentation must include a copy of the indictment, information, or accusation, and a judgment of conviction or sentence, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The demanding state must also demonstrate that the person sought was present in that state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Oklahoma law, specifically Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, outlines these requirements. If the accused is found within Oklahoma, the governor may issue a warrant for their arrest and rendition. The accused 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 determining if the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, if they are the person named in the warrant, and if the warrant is in order. It does not permit a review of the merits of the case in the demanding state. Therefore, the presence of the accused in the demanding state at the time of the offense is a fundamental jurisdictional fact that must be established.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. Article IV, Section 2 of the UCEA, as implemented in Oklahoma Statutes Title 22, Section 1141.1 et seq., outlines the requirements for an extradition demand. For a demand to be valid, it must include a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of a crime in the demanding state. Crucially, this charging document must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or the sentence imposed in the latter case. The statute further mandates that the indictment, information, or affidavit must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. Oklahoma law, consistent with the UCEA, requires that the demanding state’s documents be authenticated by the executive authority of that state. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that the person sought is indeed a fugitive from justice and that the demand is legally sound, preventing arbitrary arrests and detentions. The presence of a conviction or sentence document is critical to establishing the legal basis for the demand, differentiating it from mere accusations or civil matters.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted in Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1141.1 et seq.), outlines the process for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this process is the documentation required by the demanding state. The demanding state must provide an indictment, an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. This charging document must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence imposed in the state where the crime occurred. Furthermore, the demanding state must certify that the person sought is a fugitive from justice, meaning they were present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and subsequently departed. The demanding state’s executive authority, typically the governor, issues a formal demand for the fugitive’s surrender. In Oklahoma, the Governor reviews this demand and, if satisfied that the requirements of the UCEA are met, issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The warrant must specify the name of the person to be arrested, the crime charged, and the demanding state. The person arrested has the right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the scope of the habeas corpus review is limited to verifying the regularity of the extradition proceedings and whether the person is indeed the one named in the warrant, not to determine guilt or innocence. The demanding state’s certification of the fugitive status is a critical component that the demanding state’s executive must provide to Oklahoma’s executive. Without this certification, the demand is legally insufficient.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma as codified in 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., governs the process of interstate rendition. A key provision, 22 O.S. § 1141.10, addresses the return of fugitives to the demanding state when they have been convicted of a crime in the asylum state. If a person is found to be a fugitive from justice and is sought for a crime committed in another state, and that person is also subject to prosecution or has been convicted of a crime in Oklahoma, Oklahoma courts can, upon proper demand from the demanding state, deliver the fugitive to the agent of the demanding state. This delivery can occur even if the fugitive is serving a sentence in Oklahoma for an offense committed within Oklahoma. The governor’s warrant, issued under the authority of the UCEA, is the critical document authorizing the surrender. The demanding state must present a formal demand that includes a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, or an indictment or information, accompanied by an affidavit stating the facts and circumstances of the offense, and a statement that the fugitive has fled from justice. The Oklahoma courts, when presented with a valid demand, are generally bound to honor it, ensuring the efficient administration of justice across state lines. The fugitive’s presence in Oklahoma is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for the purpose of rendition, regardless of whether the fugitive is incarcerated or on parole in Oklahoma.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the documentation required for an extradition request. Specifically, the demanding state must provide an indictment, an information, or a warrant, accompanied by a copy of the charging document. Furthermore, the demanding state must also furnish an affidavit made before a person authorized to administer oaths, which attests to the facts and circumstances of the alleged crime. This affidavit is essential for establishing probable cause. In Oklahoma, while the demanding state’s governor’s warrant is the primary instrument initiating the formal extradition process within the asylum state, the underlying documentation from the demanding state must satisfy the probable cause requirement. The question asks about the essential documentation from the demanding state, not the internal processing within Oklahoma. The core requirement for initiating extradition is proof that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it, which is typically established through the indictment, information, or warrant along with supporting affidavits. Therefore, the absence of an affidavit made before an authorized officer, which supports the factual basis of the charge, would render the request incomplete and potentially invalid for extradition purposes under the UCEA.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key aspect is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive. Oklahoma law, as codified in Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, specifically Section 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., outlines these requirements. The demanding state must present proof that the person sought committed a crime in that state. The role of the Governor of Oklahoma is crucial; they review the demand and supporting documents. If the demand is found to be in order and the person is indeed the one sought, the Governor will issue a Governor’s Warrant for the arrest and surrender of the fugitive. This process ensures that rendition is based on proper legal authority and sufficient evidence of a crime committed in the demanding jurisdiction, preventing arbitrary detentions or surrenders. The emphasis is on the formal legal requisites being met by the demanding state before Oklahoma’s executive authority is exercised.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oklahoma through Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state. Under Oklahoma law, specifically 22 O.S. § 1141.5, the demanding state must provide an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. This affidavit must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint. Furthermore, the demanding state must present a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. If the accused has escaped from confinement or violated probation or parole, the demanding state must provide a statement by the prison or jail official detailing the escape or violation, along with an authenticated copy of the order of commitment. The question focuses on the sufficiency of documentation required for a governor’s warrant to be validly issued for a fugitive apprehended in Oklahoma. Specifically, it tests the understanding of what constitutes a legally sufficient charging document from the demanding state. The law requires that the demanding state’s documents clearly establish probable cause that the person sought committed the crime charged. A sworn statement from a law enforcement officer in the demanding state, detailing the alleged criminal conduct and supporting evidence, can serve as the necessary affidavit if it establishes probable cause. This aligns with the principle that the demanding state must demonstrate the accused is a fugitive from its justice. The absence of a formal indictment or information does not automatically invalidate the request if a properly sworn affidavit from a law enforcement officer, establishing probable cause, is provided.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the prima facie evidence required for a valid rendition warrant. Oklahoma Statute Title 22, Section 1141.13, outlines that the application for requisition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, authenticated by the oath of the accusing prosecutor, and accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued thereon. Furthermore, the demanding state must demonstrate that the person sought 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 affidavits from witnesses, documentary evidence, or even the accused’s own admissions. The burden is on the demanding state to provide sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime and was within the demanding state’s jurisdiction when it occurred. The asylum state’s governor reviews this evidence to determine if the individual should be extradited. A failure to present adequate proof of presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense is a common ground for denying extradition. The legal standard is not about guilt or innocence but about whether the demanding state has met the procedural and evidentiary requirements for extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma and codified in Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the documentation required for a valid extradition demand. Specifically, Section 22 O.S. § 1141.5 mandates that the demanding state’s executive authority must furnish an affidavit, information, or indictment charging the accused with a crime. This document must be accompanied by a copy of the law of the demanding state’s state under which the charge is laid. Furthermore, the UCEA requires that the copy of the law be “attested to be authentic by the executive authority of the demanding state.” This attestation is critical for verifying the legal basis of the charge and ensuring that the accused is being sought for a recognized offense in the originating jurisdiction. Without this authenticated copy of the relevant statute, the asylum state’s governor cannot be assured that the demand is legally sound, potentially leading to the rejection of the extradition request. The requirement serves as a safeguard against baseless or improperly founded extradition attempts, upholding principles of due process and comity between states.

The scenario presented involves a fugitive, Mr. Silas Croft, who is sought by the state of Texas for a felony offense and has been apprehended in Oklahoma. The core of extradition law, particularly under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA) as adopted by Oklahoma, centers on the Governor’s authority to issue a rendition warrant. This warrant must be supported by specific documentation. Oklahoma Statutes Title 22, Section 1141.5, outlines the required documents for an asylum state governor to issue a rendition warrant. These include a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and an affidavit charging the fugitive with the commission of a crime. Crucially, these documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state, meaning the Governor of Texas must certify their authenticity. The question tests the understanding of the procedural prerequisites for a valid rendition warrant. The absence of a sworn affidavit accompanying the indictment, or the failure to have the indictment authenticated by the Texas Governor, would render the rendition process procedurally defective under Oklahoma law. Therefore, the Governor of Oklahoma cannot issue a rendition warrant if the Texas Governor’s certification is missing from the submitted indictment, as this certification is a statutory requirement for the demanding state’s executive authority to attest to the validity of the charging document.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma under Title 22 O.S. § 1141.1 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act involves the governor’s role in issuing an arrest warrant upon a proper demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. The demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction, which must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Oklahoma law specifically requires that the demanding state’s documents be presented to the Governor of Oklahoma. Upon receiving a proper demand, the Governor of Oklahoma must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged. This warrant is directed to any peace officer of Oklahoma. The person arrested must then be brought before a judge of a court of record in Oklahoma. The judge will inform the arrested person of the cause of their arrest and the charge contained in the original demand. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the scope of the habeas corpus hearing in extradition cases is limited. The court can only inquire into whether the person is the one named in the warrant, whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the warrant is valid. The court cannot delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused or the merits of the case in the demanding state. If the judge finds the arrest and detention lawful, the person is committed to jail to await extradition. If the person is not arrested and delivered to the demanding state within a specified period (typically 30 days, though this can be extended by the Governor), they must be discharged from custody, unless the Governor has granted an extension. This period is a statutory safeguard to prevent indefinite detention without extradition. Therefore, in this scenario, the initial action by the Governor of Oklahoma to issue the warrant upon receiving the authenticated demand from the Governor of Texas is the correct procedural step. The subsequent presentation to a judge of a court of record is also mandated by the UCEA. The key is that the process begins with the executive authority’s review and issuance of the warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oklahoma, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect involves the governor’s role in issuing a rendition warrant. When a demanding state, such as Texas, seeks the return of an individual alleged to have committed a crime within its jurisdiction, and that individual is found in Oklahoma, the Governor of Oklahoma must issue a rendition warrant. This warrant is predicated on a formal application from the executive authority of the demanding state, which must include a copy of the indictment, information, or accusation, or the judgment of conviction or sentence, along with a statement by the executive authority that the person has fled from justice. Oklahoma law, specifically Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 1141.1 et seq., mirrors these UCEA provisions. The governor’s determination is not a full trial on the merits of the case but rather a review to ensure the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and that the person sought is indeed the fugitive named. If these prerequisites are met, the governor is generally obligated to issue the warrant. The question asks about the initial formal step taken by the demanding state’s executive authority to initiate the process, which is the formal demand for rendition, accompanied by the necessary charging documents and a sworn statement. This demand is presented to the governor of the asylum state, in this case, Oklahoma.