The guilt or innocence of the accused as to the crime of which he is charged may not be inquired into by the governor or in any proceedings after the demand for extradition accompanied by a charge of crime in legal form has been presented to the governor, except as it may be involved in identifying the person held as the person charged with the crime.
Source: L. 53: p. 320, § 20. CSA: C. 72, § 65. CRS 53: § 60-1-20. C.R.S. 1963: § 60-1-20.
ANNOTATION
The guilt or innocence of the alleged fugitive may not be considered in extradition matters. Self v. People, 133 Colo. 524, 297 P.2d 887 (1956).
Guilt or innocence of the crime charged has no bearing on the issue of extradition but will be determined on the trial of the case once he is returned to the demanding state. Fox v. People, 161 Colo. 163, 420 P.2d 412 (1966); Osborne v. Van Cleave, 173 Colo. 26, 475 P.2d 625 (1970).
When the court in Kansas forfeited the petitioner's bond, he became a fugitive within the meaning of the extradition laws. Whether it was wrongfully revoked is an issue between the petitioner and the state of Kansas, over which the courts of Colorado have no jurisdiction. Davis v. People, 172 Colo. 486, 474 P.2d 206 (1970).
Extradition is but one step in securing the presence of the defendant in the court in which he may be tried, and in no manner determines the question of guilt or innocence. Eathorne v. Nelson, 180 Colo. 288, 505 P.2d 1 (1973).
Colorado courts cannot determine the accused's guilt or innocence under the laws of the demanding state in resolving the extradition issue. Rush v. Baker, 188 Colo. 136, 533 P.2d 36 (1975).
Neither are constitutional rights justiciable. Petitioner's allegations concerning a violation of his constitutional rights present no issue justiciable in the Colorado courts. His remedy for violation of such rights in Mississippi lies in the post conviction procedures provided by Mississippi in its state courts, and in the appropriate federal courts. Holmes v. People, 169 Colo. 371, 456 P.2d 731 (1969).
And criminal procedure is not applicable. Being a summary proceeding of a civil nature, not involving the guilt or innocence of the accused, there is no compelling reason to apply the strict rules of criminal procedure in determining factual issues that may arise at extradition hearings on a petition of habeas corpus. North v. Koch, 169 Colo. 508, 457 P.2d 915 (1969).
Statute as basis for jurisdiction. See Crumrine v. Erickson, 186 Colo. 139, 526 P.2d 148 (1974).
Applied in Wilkerson v. Vogt, 167 Colo. 109, 445 P.2d 715 (1968).