Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Mooney v. Holohan

United States District Court · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureHabeas CorpusFederal-State Judicial RelationsExhaustion of State RemediesDue Processhabeas corpusstate custodydue process

Facts

Petitioner was imprisoned under a California superior court judgment convicting him of first-degree murder arising from the 1916 Preparedness Parade bombing; his death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment. He alleged that the prosecution obtained the conviction solely through perjured testimony known by the state's prosecuting officer to be false, and that the state later admitted the testimony was perjured. He further alleged that evidence discovered only after his motion for new trial and state appeal would have impeached and refuted that testimony, and that the state had deliberately suppressed and concealed that evidence. He claimed the resulting conviction and restraint violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue

May a federal district court consider on the merits a state prisoner's habeas petition alleging that his conviction was procured by knowingly used perjured testimony and suppressed evidence, where the petitioner has not first obtained a determination of that federal constitutional claim through habeas corpus in the highest state court? More generally, may the federal court intervene by habeas corpus in the ordinary course of state criminal procedure absent an exceptional case of peculiar urgency?

Rule

Although federal district courts have authority to discharge a person held by state authority in violation of the Constitution or federal law, they ordinarily will not interfere by habeas corpus with the regular course of state procedure. In cases such as this, the petitioner must first exhaust available state remedies by presenting the federal constitutional claim to the highest state court, and if unsuccessful seek review in the United States Supreme Court; only exceptional cases of great or peculiar urgency justify earlier federal habeas intervention.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Evan Torres is serving a state sentence in Ohio after a jury trial in Toledo. He files a petition in federal district court alleging that the prosecutor knowingly presented false eyewitness testimony and hid impeachment material, but Evan has never filed a state habeas petition raising that federal due process claim in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

How should the federal district court respond?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that although a federal district court has habeas power, it ordinarily will not interfere with the regular course of state criminal procedure until the prisoner has exhausted available state remedies. The prisoner must first present the federal constitutional question to the highest state court competent to decide it, and only exceptional cases of great or peculiar urgency justify earlier federal intervention. Because Evan has not done so, the district court should not reach the merits. (Derived from Mooney v. Holohan (n.d.).)