WILDE
v.
WYOMING ET AL.
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.
In 1945, Wilde pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received a life sentence, but he later filed habeas corpus petitions alleging his guilty plea was induced without counsel present and that the prosecutor suppressed exonerating eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court held that Wilde was entitled to an adequate hearing on these constitutional claims, as the state courts had failed to provide any meaningful consideration of his allegations, and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for proceedings on the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. In petitions for writs of habeas corpus, filed with the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Wyoming and with the Wyoming Supreme Court, the petitioner alleged, among other grounds for relief, that his plea of guilty to second degree murder in December 1945, upon which he received a life sentence, was induced when he “had no counsel present” and that the prosecutor wilfully suppressed the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the alleged crime which would have exonerated the petitioner. It does not appear from the record that an adequate hearing on these allegations was held in the District Court, or any hearing of any nature in, or by direction of, the Supreme Court.
We find nothing in our examination of the record to justify the denial of hearing on these allegations. The judgment is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for a hearing thereon. Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116; Sublett v. Adams, 362 U. S. 143.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)…xtended, the test formulated in Mooney v. Holohan when we said: “The same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go' uncorrected when it appears.” And see Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U. S. 28; Wilde v. Wyoming, 362 U. S. 607. Cf. Burley v. Mayo, 351 U. S. 277, 285 (dissenting opinion). We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,…
-
United States ex rel. Thomas Meers v. Wilkins, 326 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1964)…own to be perjured, and by the suppression of testimony favorable to him.” The petition did allege, however, that the testimony of favorable witnesses was repressed under intimidation and threats by the state authorities. Again, in Wilde v. Wyoming, 362 U.S. 607, 80 S.Ct. 900, 4 L.Ed.2d 985 (1960), the court ordered a hearing on a habeas corpus petition alleging lack of counsel at a guilty plea and “that the prosecutor wilfully suppressed the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the alleged crime which would ha…
-
United States v. Mayersohn, 452 F.2d 521 (2d Cir. 1971)…124, 1128 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 862, 92 S.Ct. 49, 30 L.Ed.2d 106 (1971). . Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942) ; United States v. Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138, 146-147 (2d Cir. 1968). See Wilde v. Wyoming, 362 U.S. 607, 80 S.Ct. 900, 4 L.Ed.2d 985 (1960) (per curiam). . Kyle v. United States, 297 F. 2d 507, 514 (2d Cir. 1961) (involving an application to vacate sentence under section 2255 of Title 28). . United States v. Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138, 148 (2d Cir. 1968)…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1956)
- Sublett v. Adams, 362 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1960)