and could not obtain extradition until after it had procured a conviction of the accused upon a full and substantial trial here. In re Wadge, 15 F. 864, 866 (S.D.N.Y.1883), quoted in In re Extradition of Sindona, 450 F.Supp. 672, 685 (S.D.N.Y.1978). The desire to avoid a full-scale trial embracing credibility issues that would, in any event, be reconsidered by an Indian tribu nal plainly animated Magistrate Hedges determination not to permit petitioners independent discovery of the circumstances of Singh’s confession, which they sought prior to the original hearing, and his refusal to consider to any significant degree petitioners’ more general proffer with respect to the practices allegedly engaged in by Indian police to induce confessions. See In re Singh, 123 F.E.D. at 111, 115, 118 (<HOLDING>). Taking cognizance of rulings already made by
holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint and decide asapplied challenges before facial challenges holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights  ie whether it was involuntary  or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda  holding petitioners challenges to singh confession should be made in an indian court holding state law applicable to an indian accused of statutory rape of an indian minor occurring offreservation