Sweeney v. Woodall/Concurrence Frankfurter

by Felix Frankfurter

United States Supreme Court

344 U.S. 86

Sweeney  v.  Woodall

 Argued: Nov. 17, 1952. --- Decided: Jan 5, 1953

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, concurring.

I join in the Court's opinion because I agree that due regard for the relation of the States, one to another, in our federal system and for that of the courts of the United States to those of the States requires that claims even as serious as those here urged first be raised in the courts of the demanding State. Even so, it is appropriate to emphasize that in this case there is no suggestion in the application for habeas corpus that the prisoner would be without opportunity to resort to the courts of Alabama for protection of his constitutional rights upon his return to Alabama. We cannot assume unlawful action of the prison officials which would prevent the petitioner from invoking the aid of the local courts nor readily open the door to such a claim. Compare Cochran v. State of Kansas, 316 U.S. 255, 62 S.Ct. 1068, 86 L.Ed. 1453. Our federal system presupposes confidence that a demanding State will not exploit the action of an asylum State by indulging in outlawed conduct to a returned fugitive from justice.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

Notes