Talk:Coram nobis

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

2016 Rewrite

I was first introduced to the writ of Coram Nobis while working on a case. The Wikipedia article at the time was brief and confused state and federal requirements. As I further researched the term and its application by the various courts, I was surprised to see how often litigants misapplied this writ. I have since read over a thousand Coram Nobis cases and estimate that over 90-95% of those seeking this writ did not qualify. In some cases, petitioners who may have qualified for relief under other avenues were unnecessarily waiting for months and years for a disposition (and ultimate denial) in their Coram Nobis petition.

In 2016, I decided to rewrite the Wikipedia article on the writ of Coram Nobis. My goal was to help petitioners by providing clearer descriptions of the criteria required to qualify for the writ and (as a result) help the courts (and ultimately taxpayers) by reducing unqualified petitions for the writ. I underestimated the scope of this project, and it took several months to complete; but on 18 July, 2016, I completed and uploaded the article, increasing the size from 16K bytes to nearly 100K. This article is still not perfect, and I am always pleased to see contributions from others. Ultimately, I hope this article helps those who were unfairly convicted.

Chipermc (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I appreciate the time you spent on this. I suggest that the introduction should say that the application for this writ and the writ itself are only used in criminal proceedings, not in civil law. I have made this change, only for the US. If it is available in civil cases in some states, then the exceptions can be added to the introduction. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coram nobis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire just added

I added New Hampshire's recent decision in the table and added a description, but don't know how to amend table of contents; I also haven't updated the map or the body text to reflect the number of states that now recognize coram nobis. Seanmichalski (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massive US bias

While I live in the US and am happy to hear and read about US law, other common law jurisdictions too need space to talk about how they create writs. Perhaps the three sections on the United States should be moved to a new article. Ifly6 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment – great question that others may also want to know. So, forgive me if I provide a lengthy reply and provide more information than what you want. I did a quick, cursory search to see if I could find any evidence demonstrating if any of the other 40 countries with common-law judicial systems utilize the writ of coram nobis, but could not find anything.

Since my research was very limited, it is possible other common law countries use the writ of coram nobis; but I would not be surprised if the United States is the only country where the writ of coram nobis is still in use. Writs were part of the English judicial system; so, if another country were to adopt English writs, it would likely be under the same circumstances that led to the adoption of writs in the United States. When the United States formed its judicial system in 1789, there were almost no laws and no prior judicial rulings for courts to follow. The US government decided to allow courts to rely on writs until a statute or case law addressed the specific issue before the court. At the time, most US citizens were of English ancestry, English law was easier to understand for citizens and the court. After the US declared its independence from England, the next common law countries to gain independence were Canada in 1867 and Australia in 1901 (at least partial independence – full independence for both countries occurred in 1931). By this time, writs had begun to lose favor in the UK court system. In 1907, UK completely replaced the writ of coram nobis. So, after the Unites States, other countries perhaps did not adopt writs because they were not as traditional as it was when the US became independent.

It was also important to note that not only did the US adopt writs; the US adopted the specific names of writs (the same Latin names created by the English courts). These Latin names are confusing for those who have little experience in law. For example, habeas corpus is Latin for “produce the body”. The writ required prison officials to bring a person to a court so that an official could evaluate the legality of a person’s imprisonment. However, even for someone who knew Latin, it is unclear as to the purpose of this writ just from the words, “produce the body”. Habeas corpus has more name recognition and it is widely accepted by other common-law countries as part of its judicial practice, but other writs do not have the same name recognition. Countries may have replaced the name coram nobis with other, less formal names. In fact, many states decided to streamline its rules, eliminate the name coram nobis, and replace it with a clearer term. This may have occurred in other countries. For example, I have seen some countries use a writ of error which could be of the same nature as the writ of coram nobis.

Therefore, because most common law countries obtained independence after the UK abolished writs, and because many judicial systems tend to replace the name writ of coram nobis with modern names, there may not be any other common law judicial system utilizing the writ of coram nobis. So I do not think it would be necessary at this time to move this to a new article.--Chipermc 02:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of Carlisle v. United States

Over the past few years, I had the opportunities to read many briefs and court opinions in coram nobis cases and I believe there is a Supreme Court quote that is often misinterpreted. In Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996), the Court wrote, “[i]t is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where [a writ of coram nobis] would be necessary or appropriate.’” id. at 429. Briefs in opposition to a coram nobis petitions or federal courts in orders denying coram nobis petitions sometimes use this quote to indicate that the writ is never ‘necessary or appropriate’ in federal criminal cases. I believe this interpretation is taken out of context.

The Carlisle case quoted United States v. Smith, 331 US 469, 475 n.4 (1947). The Smith case occurred in 1947, seven years before the Supreme Court’s landmark coram nobis case, United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954). Morgan provided the writ of coram nobis in situations where a petitioner is no longer in custody, and there is new evidence proving the conviction was a fundamental error.

The 1996 Carlisle case involved a coram nobis petitioner incarcerated in a federal prison for the conviction challenged in the coram nobis petition. In other words, Mr. Carlisle was in-custody. The Supreme Court said “[i]t is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where [a writ of coram nobis] would be necessary or appropriate” only in cases where petitioners seek a writ of coram nobis while in custody . I agree that it is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal case where the writ of coram nobis would be appropriate for those in custody, but this cannot be applied to petitioners who are no longer in custody. In fact, just three years after Carlisle, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) that military courts (a type of federal court) could entertain coram nobis petitions.

The Supreme Court in Morgan provided conceivable scenarios that would justify the issuance of the writ of coram nobis. Albeit rare, federal courts have issued writs of coram nobis. See, for example, Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, while it is true that the writ of coram nobis is a highly unusual remedy, I believe it is inappropriate to portray it as “inconceivable”.--Chipermc 19:58, 06 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more observation about Carlisle. This observation is regarding another statement that created confusion among lower courts. I try not to criticize a court (especially the Supreme Court) but the Court’s comments (all in a single paragraph) about the writ of coram nobis in Carlisle seem to be written in haste and (in my opinion) are a bit careless. The Court wrote in Carlisle that the writ of coram nobis “was traditionally available only to bring before the court factual errors.” This statement caused some confusion with lower court because it was unclear whether the Court was limiting the writ to only errors of fact (and restricting the writ from correcting errors of law).

The confusion of lower courts is highlighted by the First Circuit in United States v. Sawyer, 239 F. 3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001). In Sawyer, the government used Carlisle to argue that the writ could only correct errors of fact. The First Circuit observed how other courts interpreted Carlisle to limit the writ of coram nobis to errors of fact, but after careful consideration, the First Circuit determined that the writ was available to correct both errors of fact and errors of law. The confusion continued until 2009 when the Supreme Court clarified in United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) that the writ was indeed available to correct both errors of fact and errors of law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s single paragraph in Carlisle regarding the writ coram nobis is misleading in two ways. First, the Court said it could not conceive of circumstances where the writ of coram nobis would be necessary or appropriate for those in prison. However, it is entirely conceivable (albeit extremely rare) where the circumstances of a case make the writ of coram nobis necessary and appropriate for those no longer in prison. Second, the Court said the writ of coram nobis was traditionally available only for factual errors. However, several years later, the Court clarified that the writ is now available for both factual and legal error. Thus, I would be leery of any coram nobis argument citing Carlisle.--Chipermc 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.116.144.39 (talk) [reply]