Chessman v. Teets

Supreme Court

Chessman v. Teets

350 U.S. 3, 76 S. Ct. 34, 100 L. Ed. 2d 4, 100 L. Ed. 4, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 271

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 17, 1955

Docket196

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 350 U.S. 3 (Chessman v. Teets) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chessman v. Teets, 350 U.S. 3, 76 S. Ct. 34, 100 L. Ed. 2d 4, 100 L. Ed. 4, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 271 (1955).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *4 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *4 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 U.S. 3, 76 S. Ct. 34, 100 L. Ed. 2d 4, 100 L. Ed. 4, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chessman-v-teets-scotus-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack