The Constitution requires states to return people accused of crimes in other states. It’s not up to Illinois judges to determine if Wisconsin law or prosecutors are just or not. If he rules against extradition, he will be overruled.
The only thing at issue here, is that the Wisconsin case is so extraordinarily frivolous and vengeful - and on video.
Though if it is actually automatic, there would not be need for a hearing.
The only thing at issue here, is that the Wisconsin case is so extraordinarily frivolous and vengeful - and on video.
Though if it is actually automatic, there would not be need for a hearing.
Full disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I have taught the Constitution virtually word-by-word for many years. Extradition is required, but not necessarily automatic. The defendant does get to have a hearing. As someone noted he can claim he is not the person wanted by the other state. Obviously that cannot apply in this case. I suppose a lawyer could claim that the law in question is absurd, but again that doesn’t apply here. Can they argue that the charge itself is absurd? I suppose they can but I don’t know that an Illinois judge has or should have the power to make that judgement.
In any case consider the politics of Illinois. Do you think that upon appeal the Illinois court system is going to rule against Rittenhouse’s extradition?