In law, a motion for a writ of coram nobis (or error coram nobis, from the Latin "in our presence", usually translated in context as "the error before us") is a petition to the court in its capacity of a Court of Equity to correct a previous error "of the most fundamental character" to "achieve justice" where "no other remedy" is available. A coram nobis petition applies to persons who have already been convicted and have served their sentence. It may seek to remove probation requirements or restrictions, eliminate payment or obtain refund of court imposed fines, restore voting rights and gun ownership, improve employment and credit potential, remove a public stigma, and so forth, in order to restore so far as possible the erroneously convicted party to a pre-conviction state. Motions may be filed by heirs at law even after the original person is deceased. Such motions cannot be used to address issues of law previously ruled upon by the court but only to address errors of fact that were not known at time of trial or were knowingly withheld during and after trial from judges and defendants by prosecutors, and which might have altered the verdict were they presented at the trial. One relatively well-known example was in regard to the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld a conviction pertaining to the World War II Japanese American internment. In 1984, a federal district court judge granted a writ of coram nobis, overturning the conviction. See Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17410. Another example of the use of coram nobis is in the Alger Hiss case. In 1982, a petition by Hiss for a writ of coram nobis was denied. See In re Hiss, 542 F. Supp. 973, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13963.
Criteria
The state of Arkansas Supreme Court has explained the criteria for granting the writ in that state:
- A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, known more for its denial than its approval.
- The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature.
- The only reasons for issuing such a writ (in the case of Criminal Appeals) is "in one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial; (2) a coerced guilty plea; (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor; or (4) a third-party confession to the crime that occurs during the time between conviction and appeal."
- Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the original judgment was valid.
- Although there is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due diligence is required in making an application for relief; in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be denied.
- With regard to seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due diligence requires that (1) the defendant be unaware of the fact at the time of trial; (2) he could not, in the exercise of due diligence, have presented the fact at trial; or (3) upon discovering the fact, he did not delay bringing the petition.
- The supreme court does not lightly overrule cases and applies a strong presumption in favor of the validity of prior decisions; as a matter of public policy, it is necessary to uphold prior decisions unless a great injury or injustice would result.
- A mere claim of newly discovered evidence in itself is not a basis for relief under coram nobis; the petitioner must show that a fundamental error occurred, such that the facts as alleged as grounds for its issuance are such that there is a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered or would have been prevented had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed at trial, not that the newly discovered evidence might have produced a different result had it been known to judge and jury.
- It is the petitioner's burden to show that a writ of error coram nobis was warranted; the supreme court would not undertake to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court just for the purpose of allowing petitioner to conduct a "fishing expedition."
- Echols v. Arkansas, 125 S.W.3d 153
