There is something about the writ of coram nobis that inspires opinion writers to odd metaphors. One instance is a longtime favorite cryptic quote:
The writ of coram nobis appears to be the wild ass of the law which the courts cannot control.
Anderson v. Buchanan, 292 Ky. 810, 168 S.W.2d 48, 55 (1943). That one is vivid enough that the reader doesn’t really spend much time trying to understand what the heck it means. But perhaps the writer was lost and didn’t know:
In writing on the subject we have wobbled and bobbled like a lost raft at sea. But we are not alone, as other courts likewise seem to be without mast and compass when sailing this sea.
Anderson v. Buchanan, 292 Ky. 810, 168 S.W.2d 48, 55 (1943). A more recent effort is an opinion that opens with a sports metaphor:
A Hail Mary pass in American football is a long forward pass made in desperation at the end of a game, with only a small chance of success. The writ of error coram nobis is its criminal-law equivalent.
United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249, 251 (1st Cir. 2012). In spite of all this vivid language, “not many people seem to recognize it when they see it.” Anderson, ”Coram Nobis,” 4 Idaho L. Rev. 89, 89 (1967).
Given this post’s overuse of the word “Anderson” and its general content, I’m expecting at least one regular to comment on it.
That George opinion just won’t let go. Coram nobis needs a survey and a map, and probably requires a prescription:
“The metes and bounds of the writ of coram nobis are poorly defined and the Supreme Court has not developed an easily readable roadmap for its issuance. …
The Supreme Court has always envisioned coram nobis as strong medicine, not profligately to be dispensed.”
United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249, 253-254 (1st Cir. 2012). Also, it’s “hen’s teeth rare.”
And then there’s this “Such reasoning has special force where, as here, a challenger is asking us to defenestrate a judgment that became final long ago.” United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249, 258 (1st Cir. 2012).
(the opinion also sent me to the dictionary: “The devoir of persuasion is on the petitioner.” devoir=duty).
It’s by Bruce Selya, who is apparently known for colorfully written opinions.
Yeah, How Appealing used to flag Selyaisms. It seems that the writ cries out to be apostrophized in verse.
My ignorance of criminal law is such that I barely know what this writ is — Rule 60 for convicts? If criminal procedure were actually a class about criminal procedure, and not a specialized con law class, maybe I would have picked up on this in law school.
(First time I’ve been at a real computer since I saw this post. That mobile bug is decreasing my commenting ability. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing for your blog!)