# In Re Mooney

> California Supreme Court · October 29, 1937 · 10 Cal. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533143

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Application of THOMAS J. MOONEY for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 29, 1937
- **Citations:** 10 Cal. 2d 1; 10 Cal. 1; 73 P.2d 554; 1937 Cal. LEXIS 459
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Langdon
- **Judges:** Langdon
- **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533143

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533143. Public record. Not legal advice.