writ of coram nobis

writ of coram nobis

(writ of core-uhm noh-bis) n. from Latin for "in our presence," an order by a court of appeals to a court which rendered judgment requiring that trial court to consider facts not on the trial record which might have resulted in a different judgment if known at the time of trial. (See: newly-discovered evidence)

References in periodicals archive ?
10, (McKinney 2005) ("In 1943 the Court of Appeals resurrected the ancient writ of coram nobis by which a person convicted of an offense could petition the trial court to exercise its inherent power to set aside the judgment of conviction on the basis of facts not disclosed prior to judgment due to duress, fraud or excusable mistake; which, had they been disclosed to the court, would have prevented entry of the judgment.
While this language could be read to suggest that the writ of coram nobis, and its statutory descendant in section 440.
Usually, a writ of coram nobis is used to attack a judgment that was infirm at the time it issued, for reasons that later came to light.
With the new evidence and the work of the congressional commission as a backdrop, a federal court reviewed the case under a writ of coram nobis in 19 84.
58) Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who heard the petition for the writ of coram nobis in 1984, carefully noted that her decision reversing the conviction did not, in any way, change or challenge the legal principles laid out by the Supreme Court in the original Korematsu case in 1944.
First, when students dig into the law--Korematsu from 1944, the 1984 district court opinion granting the writ of coram nobis, and other cases and materials--they readily come to the conclusion that Korematsu's core principle remains very much alive.
Courts entertain the writ of coram nobis for the purpose of correcting errors in criminal convictions in situations in which other remedies are inadequate or unavailable.
59) A writ of coram nobis (60) does not substitute for an appeal.
45) Irons has recounted that when he presented some of his evidence at a CWRIC hearing, one of the commissioners, Judge William Marutani, asked whether the wartime cases could be opened by use of a writ of coram nobis.
After a great deal of research, the legal team, led by Dale Minami, filed a petition for writ of coram nobis on January 19, 1983 with the clerk of the United States District Court of California in San Francisco, the same court in which Fred Korematsu had been convicted more than forty years before.
The United States inherited these writs, and while many have been abolished or have become unnecessary, such as the writ of coram nobis, which has been replaced by the right to file a motion for relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.