STATE OF ILLINOIS) )ss COUNTY OF LAKE ) 1M E IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINET rele D JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, LAKE COUNTY, ILLIN' OCT 30 2020 onset PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) vs. ) 20 MR 513 ) ) KYLE H. RITTENHOUSE ORDER On August 27, 2020, Kyle H. Rittenhouse was brought before this Court alleging him as 1 Fugitive from Justice. He was appointed counsel for his first appearance but subsequently retained and is represented by current counsel. On October 8, 2020, Rittenhouse, through counsel, filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On October 15, 2020, the Lake County State’s Attorney's Office filed a Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. During the hearing, the State presented the Governor’s warrant and supporting paperwork. See People’s Exhibit 1. Said packet was admitted into evidence without objection. Rittenhouse called no witnesses or submitted any exhibits. Inhis Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Rittenhouse raises two issues. Rittenhouse first claims that the extradition documents do not conform with statutory requirements. Second, Rittenhouse claims that Illinois’ substantive conduct in extraditing Rittenhouse to the State of Wisconsin would violate his constitutional rights. In response, the State asserts that the warrant and accompanying documents are in proper form and that this Court should not consider Rittenhouse’s second claim as it falls outside the scope of the Illinois statutes and case law. At the outset, it is important to note the scope of an extradition hearing is governed by the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const., Art. IV Sec. 2) and Federal Law. People v. Boswell, 148 IILApp.34 915, 917, 102 HlL.Dec. 494, 500 N.E.2d 116 (2" Dist. 1986). Article IV, Sec 2 of the Federal Constitution states: A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand ofthe executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the erime Federal Constitution (U.S. Const., Art IV Sec. 2) State's right to punish its offenders must be assured and such offenders should not be accorded Protective asylum by another State”. People ex rel. Miller v. Babb, 1 Lda 191, 196, 11S NB.24 241. (IIL 1953). States are five to establish ancillary Proceedings consistent with the federal scheme. People v.exrel. Dimas v Shimp, 83 Ill App.3d 150, 38 MLDeec. $19, 403 N.E.2d 2d 750 2 Dist. 1980). Thus, states have enacted laws governing the extradition procedures, but it ‘must be noted that “extradition proceedings in the asylum state are ‘meant to be summary and ‘ministerial proceedings; they are not judicial inquiries into the metits of the charges.” Ely v Sheahen, 361 IlLApp.3d 605, 613, 297 I.Dec. $39, 8383 N.E.2d 26 (1" Dist. 2005). During habeas proceedings brought in an extradition matter, “the Judicial branch of the government will not interfere with a governor's grant of extradition, unless the order is... so palpably and conclusively shown to be wrong as to watrant an inference of fraud or inadvertence”. People ex rel. Guidotti v. Bell, 372 1.572, 877, 25 N.E.2d 45 (ll, 1939), The Illinois Supreme Court has held: Since the only purpose of extradition isthe return of the fugitive tothe Place ofthe alleged offense, his constitutional rights, other than fe Fecomniy Et #0 Personal liberty, are not involved. Courts generally petnize the right of the accused to awit of habeas corpus to determine ithe is substantially charged with a crime and is actualy a fugitive from the demanding state... {but the scope of the inquiry is limited tg those considerations. People ex rel. Hackler v. Lohman, 17 1.24 78, 160 NE.24 792 (UL 1959) The Illinois Supreme Court has set forth the four issues appropriate for determination in habeas corpus proceedings, as adopted from the United States Supreme Court: 1) Whether the extradition documents on their face are regular in form; 2) Whether the petitioner has been charged witha crime in the demanding state; 3) Whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and 4) Whether the petitioner is a fugitive. Boswell at 918; (See also Michigan v. Doran, 439 US. 282, 99 S.Ct, 530, 535, 58 L.Ed.24 521).Rittenhouse assertions only come within question one of Doran. No allegations have been made concerning the remaining three questions of Doran. In his first contention, Rittenhouse argues that the extradition documents do not satisfy statutory requirements. Specifically, Rittenhouse alleges that there is insufficient evidence that, the complaint was sworn to before a magistrate as required by Section 3 of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. 725 ILCS 25/3. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, enacted by Ilinois, Section 3 provides as follows: No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the governor unless in writing alleging, except in cases arising under Section 6, that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crimes and that thereafter fled from the state, and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon; ...The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the ‘magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the laws of that state; and the copy of indictment, information, affidavit, ... must be authenticated by the Executive Authority making the demand. 725 ILCS 25/3 (emphasis added). In its case in chief, the State presented the rendition warrant signed by governors from both Wisconsin and Illinois. People's Exhibit I contains the following: 1) Illinois Governors Warrant of Arrest. 2) Tony Evers, Office of the Governor/State of Wisconsin Requisition, 3) Tony Evers, Office of the Governor/State of Wisconsin Agent’s Appointment. 4) The State of Wisconsin, Department of Justice, cover letter of compliance. 5) County of Kenosha, District Attomey cover letter and application for requisition and verification. 6) Kenosha County court certification. 7) Criminal Complaint. 8) Affidavit of Probable Cause. 9) Warrant of Arrest. 10) Affidavit of Identification. See People's Exhibit 1.Rittenhouse offered no evidence as to the issue of whether the complaint was sworn to before a magistrate, only argument. When the rendition warrant sets forth facts to justify its issuance, a prima facia case is made that the issuance of the warrant was legal and justified and will only be overcome with proof to the contrary. People ex rel. Hernandez v. Elrod, 86 Ill.24 453, 457, 56 Ill.Dec. 663, 427 N.E.2d 1209 (Ill. 1991). During the hearing, the State did present the governors warrants and supporting documentation. See People’s Exhibit 1. A valid rendition warrant for the fugitive's ity of the issuance”. Cohen v. arrest “must substantially recite the facts necessary to the vali Sheahen, 298 Ill.App.3d 961, 965, 233 Ill.Dec. 414, 700 N.E.2d 1122 (1% Dist. 1998). This requires the rendition warrant to certify, inter alia, that the demanding state has charged petitioner with a crime under the laws of that state and that the state provided a copy of an indictment, information, or a warrant supported by an affidavit made before a magistrate. Jd. A court deems the recitals of the rendition warrant as true and accurate absent a showing that they are false, Jd. Supporting papers may be considered in determining the validity of the extradition warrant. A technical variance between the face of the warrant and supporting papers is not normally fatal. Boswell at 918. From the face of the rendition warrant in this matte, it does satisfy the facts necessary to the validity of the issuance. People’s Exhibit J contains attestations by the Governor of the State of Ilinois as well as the Governor of the State of Wisconsin that all necessary statutes have been complied with in preparing the governor's warrant. In addition, People’s Exhibit J contains a complaint alleging that Rittenhouse committed certain listed criminal acts within Wisconsin. Furthermore, contained with the criminal complaint is an assertion of probable cause by the complainant, Carli McNeil, sworn by Deputy District Attorney Angelina Gabriele, alleging Rittenhouse committed certain listed offenses. The complaint, “having been made before” Judge Mary Wagner resultéd in a warrant issued for Rittenhouse’s arrest. Such language “made before” patterns Section 3 language. Thus, this court finds that People's Exhibit J fulfills the requirements of Section 3. Even if this court were to find the complaint were not made before a magistrate as set forth above, Rittenhouse’s argument would still fail. Within People’s Exhibit 1 there also appears a document entitled “Affidavit of Probable Cause”. This document clearly satisfies allthe requirements of Section 3. It contains a statement made under oath by Assistant District Attomey Thomas Binger incorporating the criminal complaint as sufficient probable cause and stating that the document was sworn to before Judge Bruce E. Schroeder. Judge Schroeder found that the paperwork “contains the requisite facts to support a finding of probable cause” See People's Exhibit |. Any doubt left that the complaint was not sworn to before Judge Wagner is clearly cured by a subsequent finding, by a second judge, that probable cause existed for the arrest of Rittenhouse. A neutral magistrate in Kenosha County has determined there is sufficient probable cause supporting the arrest warrant and such conduct does in fact comply with Section 3 of the Act. Within this same argument, Rittenhouse claims that “the arrest paperwork contains false statements and is missing a required signature”. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, page 8 Rittenhouse seems to be asserting that the complaint forwarded to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lake County by the Antioch Police Department is somehow deficient. Doran identifies the proper issues before the court and Rittenhouse’s claims of deficient paperwork by an Illinois, police agency are not within the scope of the Uniform Extradition Act or case law. Rittenhouse’s second contention alleges that this court should apply the legal standard set forth by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that considers whether an asylum state’s conduct in extraditing an alleged fugitive would violate his constitutional rights. The Court will note that Rittenhouse did not present any witnesses regarding this issue but did not waive this argument din the pleadings. when asked by the court, Therefore, the court will address the issues Rittenhouse correctly sets forth current Illinois law. Rittenhouse acknowledges that Ilinois law prohibits review of another states finding of probable cause as well as an any alleged constitutional questions. Illinois courts have held that challenges addressing merits of the charges against the accused are outside the scope of an extradition setting. Cohen at 968. (See also Ely v. Sheahan, 361 Il.App.3d 605, 297 Ill.Dec.539, 838 N-E.2d 26 (1 Dist. 2005)) (court properly refused to examine an alibi defense argument during extradition hearing as outside the ‘ion, constitutional challenges, as stated earlier are not an issue seope set forth in Doran). In addi that is properly reviewable by courts of a rendition state, that being Illinois. Id. Rittenhouse asks this court to ignore binding Illinois law and apply the federal precedent that “allow courts to consider claims that a state’s substantive conduct in undertaking a decisionto extradite would violate the constitutional rights of the alleged fugitive”. Matter of Burt, 737 F.2d 1477, 1484. (7 Circuit. 1984), Ilinois supreme court decisions are binding on all Illinois. courts (Agricultural Transportation Assoc. v. Carpentier, 2 12d 19, 27, 116 N.E.2d 863, 867, (lil, 1953), but decisions of Federal courts other than United States Supreme Court decisions concerning questions of Federal statutory and constitutional law are not binding on Illinois courts. People v. Spahr, 58 Ill. App.3d 434, 438, 14 Ill Dec. 208, 371 N.E.2d 1261 (4" Dist. 1978). This Hlinois trial court shall not and will not forgo current settled Illinois law to apply the federal rule as requested by Rittenhouse. According to Illinois law, this Ilinois court shall not re-evaluate probable cause determined by a Wisconsin court. According to Illinois law, this Illinois court shall not determine if Rittenhouse has a valid self-defense argument for the Wisconsin charges. ‘According to Illinois law, this Illinois court shall not examine any potential political impact a Wisconsin District Attorney potentially considered in his charging decision regarding Wisconsin statutes, According to Illinois law, this Ilinois court shall not rule on the State of Wisconsin's statutes that charge a 17-year-old as an adult, According to Illinois law, an Ilinois court cannot opine on the safety or alleged lack thereof of Rittenhouse in the State of Wisconsin. These questions, pursuant to Doran and Illinois law are not to be addressed in an Illinois extradition proceeding. These are matters that can be raised in Kenosha County, Wisconsin, through pre- trial proceedings or during trial. Wherefore, this court hereby denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and grants the request by the Lake County State’s Attomey’s Office to grant extradition of Kyle H. Rittenhouse to the State of Wisconsin forthwith. Dated: October 30, 2020 LM ft Judge