| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''Coram nobis''' is an ancient right to seek a correction by a court of a prior error made by the justice system. In federal court, '''coram nobis''' exists today only in criminal cases, as in asking a court years later to overturn a prior conviction. In state court, '''coram nobis''' exists to the extent it has not been limited or prohibited by the state legislature. | + | '''Coram nobis''' is an ancient right to seek a correction by a court of a prior error made by the justice system. In federal court, '''coram nobis''' exists today only in criminal cases, such in asking a court years later to overturn a prior conviction. In state court, '''coram nobis''' (also called coram vobis) exists in any type of case to the extent coram nobis has not been limited or prohibited by the state legislature. |
| | + | |
| | + | A petitioner would seek a "[[writ]] of coram nobis," which would be an order by the court to overturn a conviction or sentence against petitioner, or change a conviction or sentence in some way. Typically a writ of coram nobis is sought after a sentence is served, because [[28 U.S.C. § 2255]] and other statutes provide stronger rights of prisoners to seek reconsideration while incarcerated. |
| | + | |
| | + | The history of this ancient right was explained as follows by the [[Virginia]] Supreme Court in its decision of ''Neighbors v. Commonwealth'', 274 Va. 503, 508 (2007): |
| | + | |
| | + | :The writ of error coram vobis, or coram nobis, is an ancient writ of the common law. It was called coram nobis (before us) in King's Bench because the king was supposed to preside in person in that court. It was called coram vobis (before you -- the king's justices) in Common Pleas, where the king was not supposed to reside. The difference related only to the form appropriate to each court and the distinction disappeared in this country when the need for it ended. 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 311, p. 561, n. 28. Mr. Minor says the proper designation here is coram vobis. IV Minor's Inst., 3 ed., Part I, pp. 1052-3. |
| | + | |
| | + | :The principal function of the writ is to afford to the court in which an action was tried an opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment was rendered, and which could not have been presented by a motion for a new trial, appeal or other existing statutory proceeding. Black's Law Dict., 3 ed., p. 1861; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 b., p. 145; Ford v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 718, 229 S.W.2d 470. It lies for an error of fact not apparent on the record, not attributable to the applicant's negligence, and which if known by the court would have prevented rendition of the judgment. It does not lie for newly-discovered evidence or newly-arising facts, or facts adjudicated on the trial. It is not available where advantage could have been taken of the alleged error at the trial, as where the facts complained of were known before or at the trial, or where at the trial the accused or his attorney knew of the existence of such facts but failed to present them. 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 at p. 148; 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 312 c., pp. 563, 567. |
| | | | |
| | == See also == | | == See also == |