Ramirez v. Indiana

PETITIONER: Ramirez
RESPONDENT: Indiana
LOCATION: United States Courthouse

DOCKET NO.: 84-5059
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: Supreme Court of Indiana

CITATION: 471 US 147 (1985)
ARGUED: Mar 19, 1985
DECIDED: Apr 01, 1985

ADVOCATES:
Kenneth F. Ripple - on behalf of the Petitioner
Kenneth Francis Ripple - on behalf of the petitioner -- rebuttal
William E. Daily - on behalf of the Respondent
William Earl Daily - on behalf of the respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Ramirez v. Indiana

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 19, 1985 in Ramirez v. Indiana

Warren E. Burger:

We'll hear arguments next in Ramirez against Indiana.

Mr. Ripple, I think you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

This case is here on writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of the State of Indiana.

It presents a single question with respect to the interpretation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.

The Court must decide whether Indiana could try the petitioner on a charge which was not mentioned in the detainer used to obtain his temporary and limited custody from the penal authorities of the State of Michigan.

The facts of this case are complicated, and I would like to state very succinctly the essence of our position on that question before I spend a good deal of time on the facts, which I think are difficult to grasp.

In essence, our submission is that this question can be answered by a straightforward of the IAD.

The trial court of the receiving state... in this case Indiana... only has authority to try a prisoner on those charges mentioned in the detainer or on those charges which arise out of the same transaction as those charges mentioned in the detainer.

For all other purposes the sending state... in this case the State of Michigan... retains both custody and jurisdiction of the prisoner.

Harry A. Blackmun:

Mr. Ripple, in that connection, where is your client now?

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

My client at the present time is in Westphil Correctional Institution in Indiana.

Harry A. Blackmun:

So he has not been returned to Michigan to continue his sentence there.

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

No, Your Honor, he has not.

And this might be a good time for me to inform the Court of several factors I was going to bring up later, probably in the--

Harry A. Blackmun:

In that connection, let me ask you, is Michigan unsympathetic to Indiana's position here?

Why should Michigan want him back?

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

--Michigan... if I may give you these facts first, I think they will partially--

Harry A. Blackmun:

I know what the facts are.

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

--answer your... answer your--

Harry A. Blackmun:

I know what the facts are.

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

--Well, Michigan could... Michigan's Governor had a right to make a determination in this case before he sent the petitioner across the line to stand charges, to stand trial on the Diazepam charges.

That right is given to the Governor of Michigan--

Harry A. Blackmun:

But Michigan isn't complaining here, is it?

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

--Michigan is not complaining here.

It is... and one would not expect in the direct appeal of the criminal case that Michigan could be the complainant.

Whether Michigan has complained to the authorities of Indiana is not in the record, and we don't know whether they have or have not.

Harry A. Blackmun:

Why should they complain?

Kenneth Francis Ripple:

They should complain because the Interstate Agreement in fact was violated.

Harry A. Blackmun:

But Indiana has the obligation and the expense of taking care of your client, not Michigan.