CHESSMAN
v.
TEETS, WARDEN

U.S. | 1955-10-17
No. 196
Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.., The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
350 U.S. 3 Supreme Court of the United States (1955) Caution
Also reported at: 100 L. Ed. 4 · 76 S. Ct. 34 · 1955 U.S. LEXIS 271 · SCDB 1955-002
Cited by 48 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A capital defendant who alleged that his appellate proceedings were conducted using a fraudulently prepared trial transcript prepared through collusion between the prosecuting attorney and a substitute court reporter was entitled to a hearing on his habeas corpus petition rather than summary dismissal, as fraud allegations state a valid due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' summary dismissal and remanded for a hearing on the merits.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner applied to the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Southern Division, for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court from a conviction for a capital offense had been heard upon a fraudulently prepared transcript of the trial proceedings. The official court reporter had died before completing the transcription of his stenographic notes of the trial, and petitioner alleges that the prosecuting attorney and the substitute reporter selected by him had, by corrupt arrangement, prepared the fraudulent transcript. On the record before us, there is no denial of petitioner’s allegations. The District Court, without issuing the writ or an order to show cause, dismissed the application as not stating a cause of action. 128 F. Supp. 600. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the District Court. 221 F. 2d 276. The charges of fraud as such set forth a denial of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103. Without intimating any opinion regarding the validity of the claim, we hold that in the circumstances disclosed by the record before us the application should not have been summarily dismissed. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for a hearing.

Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Clark dissent..

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
    ….. 321 U. S. 114 .. . .)” See, e. g., Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114, 118; Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U. S. 104, 109; Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443; United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561; Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556; Chessman v. Teets, 350 U. S. 3; Thomas v. Arizona, 356 U. S. 390; Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S: 271, 276 (dictum). The argument has recently been advanced that the Moore decision did not in fact discredit the position advanced by the Court in Frank v. Mangum (that habeas would lie on…
  • Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1956)
    …the Court have contended that all persons charged with crimes are entitled to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. E. g., Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U. S. 329; Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S. 271; Palmer v. Ashe, 342 U. S. 134; Chessman v. Teets, 350 U. S. 3. Cf. Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, 92; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275. When petitioner was brought before the trial judge to plead guilty the prosecuting attorney talked at length about the charges against petitioner, but said nothing about se…
  • Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1957)
    …reversing the Court of Appeals, remanded to the District Court for a hearing petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, charging fraud in the preparation of the state court record, which had been summarily dismissed by the District Court. 350 U. S. 3.6 This resulted in the judgment which is now before us. The District Court held that no fraud had been shown. The record of proceedings held before District Judge Goodman reveals the following additional facts as to the preparation of the state cour…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw