Disputed Bird Court Decision Goes to Justices

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear an appeal from 21 states which complained that a May ruling by the California Supreme Court could destroy extradition agreements among states.

Attorneys for California and the 20 other states have said that the state court violated a simple rule in extradition proceedings: that a suspect’s home state court is not to consider evidence of whether he is innocent or guilty. That job is left to the courts in the state that seeks to bring the suspect to trial, they said.

However, Dennis Riordan, a San Francisco attorney representing the suspect--a father seeking custody of his children--said that the case is anything but simple. If a court looks at the case closely, as did the California courts, it will conclude that the man committed no crime and, therefore, should not be extradited, he said.

Visitation Rights

Richard and Judy Smollin were divorced in 1978, and a San Bernardino County court granted her custody of their two children, Jennifer and James. The father was granted regular visitation rights. But, soon after, the mother moved to Oregon and then Texas without informing the father. Although she later obtained a Texas court order upholding her custody rights, he went back to the San Bernardino court and was granted custody.

Without waiting for the courts to settle the dispute, the father picked up the children at a bus stop in Louisiana in March, 1984, and returned them to California. The mother went to court there and got an order requiring that the father be extradited to Louisiana on kidnaping charges, an order that Gov. George Deukmejian signed on Aug. 17, 1984.

At this point, the father went back to the San Bernardino court and obtained a ruling blocking the extradition. When the case reached the California Supreme Court, this was the question: May a home state court consider “extraneous evidence” in an extradition proceeding or must it rely on the evidence presented by the other state?

Strong Dissent by Lucas

In a 6-1 decision--which featured a strong dissent by Justice Malcolm M. Lucas--the state Supreme Court said that the evidence presented by Richard Smollin could be used because it showed that he had not been “substantially charged with a crime.” The opinion was written by Justice Stanley Mosk and was signed by Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin--the three jurists removed from office by the voters in November.

Justice Lucas, named last week as the new chief justice, complained in a dissent: “My colleagues confuse the question of whether defendants are substantially charged with a crime with the question of whether the defendants are innocent.”

Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp appealed the May ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that it could wreak havoc with the extradition law. He cited a 1978 high court ruling that said extradition should be a quick, simple step in which home state courts check only to see that the papers are filed correctly.

‘Dangerous Precedent’

“This holding is absolutely contrary to the purpose of extradition law since it amounts to an acquittal of the fugitive in one state on charges pending in a sister state,” Van de Kamp said of the California court ruling. He was joined by attorneys general from 20 other states, who said that the California high court’s order “creates a dangerous precedent” that could lead to “Balkanizing the administration of justice among the states.”

Riordan, the lawyer for the father, said that the state court ruling was correct because his client was “plainly innocent,” as he had already won custody of his children in the San Bernardino court.

The federal high court had the case of California vs. Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino (86-381) on its conference list in late October but took no action until after the California elections. Arguments will be heard in late spring, and a decision is due by July.