Kramer v. Commissioner of Correction
Under the extradition clause of the federal constitution, article IV, §2, clause 2, any state may require any other state to deliver up any person deemed to be a fugitive from justice from the demanding state. Edward Kramer appealed from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his proposed extradition to Georgia, pursuant to a warrant issued by Connecticut's governor upon the demand and requisition of Georgia's governor to face further prosecution on charges of sexual molestation allegedly pending since 2000. The habeas court found that in 2009, due to Kramer's medical state and desire for a trial, a Georgia court continued his case until Kramer filed a motion and presented evidence of his physical and mental ability to assist counsel and effectively participate in a trial. In Sept. 2011, Kramer was arrested and charged in Connecticut with risk of injury to a child in violation of C.G.S. §53-21. The Georgia district attorney filed an emergency motion to revoke bond referencing Kramer's violation of a condition of release that Kramer have no unsupervised contact with persons under the age of 16. A Georgia bench warrant issued. Following the governor's warrant, Kramer remained in custody without bond. On appeal, Kramer contended that the habeas court erred in dismissing his petition. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment finding no error in the habeas court's determinations that the extradition documents were in order and Kramer was a fugitive from Georgia. Kramer's first claim, that the requisition documents were insufficient on their face to establish he was ever substantially charged with a crime in Georgia, was based principally on the original arrest warrant's express finding of "sufficient cause" rather than "probable cause." Following testimony by a Georgia district attorney that the terms were synonymous, the habeas court rejected Kramer's challenge. Kramer also contended that he was not a fugitive from Georgia because the pending charges were effectively dismissed when the state surrendered control over his prosecution to him. The habeas court, following the 2007 Connecticut Supreme Court case of Clark v. Commissioner of Correction, concluded that Kramer was a fugitive from Georgia because he was charged with crimes there, he left that state, Georgia authorities wished to prosecute him on the pending charges and he was in Connecticut.