Opinion

In Re Mooney

  • 10 Cal. 2d 1
  • 10 Cal. 1
  • 73 P.2d 554
  • 1937 Cal. LEXIS 459
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 29, 1937
Status
Published
Author
Langdon
On the bench
Langdon
Cited by
40 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.9%

The opinion

LANGDON, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

The question here involved is not the guilt or inncoence of Thomas J. Mooney. The issue, as defined by the United States Supreme Court, is whether he was accorded due process of law on his trial for murder. (Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103 [55 Sup. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791 , 98 A. L. R 406].)

In this dissenting opinion, no useful purpose would be served by reviewing the evidence. The preponderance of the material, credible evidence in the record leads me to *86 conclude that on his trial petitioner was not accorded due process of law.

For that reason, the writ of habeas corpus should issue.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.