This essay will analyze a scenario whereby two persons, Hurst and Brook, were involved in criminal acts in Newport Beach, Orange County California. After raiding the bank they fled to Nogales, Arizona whereby the parted ways and one moved into Mexico. While in Arizona, Hurst created friendship with Solana. The Police Unit was pursuing these criminals and they ultimately arrested them.
What Procedural Steps must the Orange County Prosecutor take to Extradite Hurst from Arizona?
The most effective procedural steps the Orange County prosecutor has to adopt to extradite Hurst from Arizona based on the California Penal Code and Uniform Criminal Extradition Act is to first give an extradition warrant, what is also referred to as the ‘Governor’s Warrant’ ( Roberson & Wallace, 2015). After this, a hearing will be scheduled to define whether the arrest warrant is binding if the charges are binding, and the individual arrested is truly the person being pursued or whose warrant of arrest has been released ( Miller & Wright, 2019). The escapee then has the power to renounce the extradition and go back voluntarily to California to be charged for the criminal act.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What Procedural Steps must the Orange County Prosecutor take to Extradite Brook from Mexico?
To successfully extradite Brook from Mexico, Orange County prosecutor must conduct detailed research to understand how to bring Brook back to California. In this case, this agency must make a written request for extradition to the office of foreign affairs/ international affairs. The reason behind this is the fact that there is an extradition agreement between the United States and Mexico ( Roberson & Wallace, 2015). The two nations will decide if Brook will be transferred back to California. The Mexican law court will evaluate the nation’s treaty responsibilities and more so its state’s laws and regulations, and this will define that criminal act done by Brook is criminality in Mexico ( Miller & Wright, 2019). Based on Mexican regulations, Brook will be transferred to California to be charged.
Solana files a writ of Habeas Corpus in the proper Arizona Court. How should the Court Rule? Why?
The habeas corpus is taken into consideration in where a person plans to bout the legitimacy of a court ruling. Habeas corpus is useful when one wants to justify the arrest of a suspect ( Ward, 2018; Roberson & Wallace, 2015). This generally means to “produce the body”. It is a court order requiring that an agency takes an incarcerated person to the court and demonstrate a binding reason for the incarceration ( Roberson & Wallace, 2015). The Nogales police unit arrested Solana because of the relationship they had with a suspect, Hurst. Solana can attest his innocence beyond reasonable doubt and can be set free by the court of law because of the habeas corpus. She has a right to file this. Why? Because she did not know the bank robbery committed by Hurst and colleagues ( Ward, 2018).
In conclusion, the law stipulates the procedural steps that different agencies should adhere to in extraditing and charging criminals. In this case, the best thing the Orange County prosecutor can take to extradite Hurst from Arizona is to first give an extradition warrant based on the California Penal Code and Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. On the other hand, to extradite Brook from Mexico, Orange County prosecutor must take into consideration the existing treaties. This means he/she should conduct detailed research to understand the existing treaties and make a written request for extradition to the office of foreign affairs/ international affairs. Lastly, Solana can verify his innocence and be released by the court of law because of the habeas corpus. The reason behind this is the fact that she has a right to file habeas corpus since she did have the knowledge of the bank robbery committed by Hurst and associates.
References
Miller, M. L., & Wright, R. F. (2019). Criminal procedures: Prosecution and adjudication . Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. (2015). Procedures in the justice system (11 th ed.). Pearson.
Ward, L. (2018). The Gap Between Martinez and Davila: Serving the next generation of Federal Habeas Corpus Cases . Belmont Crim. LJ, 1, 197.
