LOCATION: Tellico Dam
DOCKET NO.: 76-1596
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CITATION: 436 US 340 (1978)
ARGUED: Feb 27, 1978
DECIDED: May 23, 1978
Mr. Andrew L. Frey - for petitioner
Kevin G. Ross - for respondents, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court
Facts of the case
Media for United States v. Mauro
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - May 23, 1978 in United States v. Mauro
Byron R. White:
The other opinion and judgment I have to announce actually covers two cases.
Both of them from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and both of them involving the construction and application of the Interstate Detainer's Act,interstate agreement on detainer's act more technically.
In one of these cases, 76-1596, United States against Mauro, the issue is whether or not a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum when issued at the behest of the United States to secure a prisoner for trial is to be considered a detainer for the purposes of the Act.
If it is the protections of the Act are triggered for the prisoner and those protections are quite substantial.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the writ must be considered the detainer.
We think this was error and we have given our reasons for thinking so in an opinion that we have filed and accordingly we reverse the judgment in 76-1596.
On the other hand we agree with the Court of Appeals that once the United States has filed the detainer against a state prisoner, the subsequent use of the writ of habeas corpus to secure his production is a request for his custody within meaning of the Act and hence in those circumstances the prisoner is entitled to the protections of the Act.
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 77-52.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist has filed an opinion in which the Chief Justice has joined concurring in the judgment in 76-1596 and dissenting in 77-52.
Warren E. Burger:
Thank you, Mr. Justice White.