Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 294 U.S. 87, click here.

Mooney v. Holohan

No. ___, original

Rule to Show Cause Issued November 12, 1934
Return to Rule Presented January 7, 1935
Decided January 21, 1935
294 U.S. 103

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Syllabus

1. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs any action of a State through its legislature, its courts, or its executive officers, including action through its prosecuting officers. P. 112.

2. A criminal conviction procured by the state prosecuting authorities solely by the use of perjured testimony known by them to be perjured and knowingly used by them in order to procure the conviction is without due process of law, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 112.

3. It is the duty of every State to provide corrective judicial process for the relief of persons convicted and imprisoned for crime without due process of law; and it is to be presumed that this duty has been complied with. P. 113.

4. Semble that, in the courts of California, the writ of habeas corpus is available for one who is deprived of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of the United States. P. 113.

5. Before this Court is asked to issue a writ of habeas corpus in the case of a person held under a state commitment, recourse should be had to whatever judicial remedy afforded by the State may still remain open. P. 115.

Leave to file denied.

On a motion for leave to file a petition for habeas corpus. The case was heard upon the petition and upon a return made by the State, in response to an order to show cause. The return did not put in issue any of the facts alleged in the petition, but was in the nature of a demurrer.