court habeas corpus hearing on four grounds. See infra pp. 1296-1297. Demonstrating the facial invalidity of the extradition papers or that the petitioner is not a fugitive, clearly, does not invalidate a subsequent conviction. Showing that the person to be extradited has not been charged with a crime in the demanding state also does not undermine a subsequent conviction, so long as the person was properly charged in accordance with that state's rules of criminal procedure once returned. Similarly, showing that the extradited person was not the person named in the request for extradition does not necessarily invalidate a subsequent conviction. First, the conviction may be for another offense of which the extradited person was guilty. See Lascelles, 148 U.S. at 547, 13 S.Ct. at 691 (<HOLDING>). Second, the error may have been merely a
holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return holding that state may charge separately for the same offense but the convictions for more than one of the offenses cannot stand holding that the defendant was entitled to counsel when the offense for which he was tried could result in the imposition of a jail sentence holding that the standard for withholding of removal is more demanding than the standard for asylum holding that upon return to the demanding state a fugitive may be tried  for any other offense than that specified in the requisition for his rendition