‘‘[S]ince the plaintiff relies on his rights under the federal constitution . . . we are, in passing [on] his claims in that regard, bound to accept the law as formu- lated by the Supreme Court of the United States. . . . Decisions of that court which construe the constitution of the United States are absolutely binding on us.’’ [Citation omitted.]
How later courts described this case
- ‘‘[S]ince the plaintiff relies on his rights under the federal constitution . . . we are, in passing [on] his claims in that regard, bound to accept the law as formu- lated by the Supreme Court of the United States. . . . Decisions of that court which construe the constitution of the United States are absolutely binding on us.’’ [Citation omitted.]
- “[t]he writ of habeas corpus, as a remedy for illegal restraint, is a prerogative common-law writ providing a special and extraordinary legal remedy”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wynne, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the conclusion in this case. It seems to me that it makes a mockery of our institutions. The defendant’s return is ample, even if we did not take judicial notice of all the proceedings, to show emphatically that the accused had a fair trial. It is immaterial that he does not think he did. Three times the Supreme Court of Errors passed upon his claims. In one opinion warm praise was voiced for the public defender who fought for the accused. I prefer to stand on judicial process rather than warped protestations. Law and order are too sacred to be overlooked by courts.