Coram nobis or coram vobis also known as error coram nobis or error coram vobis (from Latin quae coram nobis resident, or quae coram vobis resident, "which [things] remain in our presence", or "in your presence", respectively: the "things" referred to are the records of the original case.) is a legal

Law

Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior, wherever possible. It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people. Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus...

 writ

Writ

In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court...

 issued by a court to correct a previous error "of the most fundamental character" to "achieve justice" where "no other remedy" is available. A petition for writ of error coram nobis is generally brought before the trial court

Trial court

A trial court or court of first instance is a court in which trials take place. Such courts are said to have original jurisdiction.- In the United States :...

, while a petition for writ of error coram vobis is brought before an appellate court

Appellate court

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court or court of appeals or appeal court , is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal...

. Both Coram nobis and coram vobis differ from Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus

is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...

 in that they do not have a custody requirement.

Purpose

A coram nobis petition applies to persons who have already been convicted of a crime and have served their sentence. It may seek to remove probation requirements or restrictions, eliminate payment or obtain refund of court imposed fines, restore voting rights and gun ownership, improve employment and credit potential, remove a public stigma, and so forth, in order to restore, so far as possible, the erroneously convicted party to a pre-conviction state. Motions may be filed by heirs at law even after the convicted person is deceased.

In a case from 2007 (Gary Earl Neighbors v. Commonwealth of Virginia), the Supreme Court of Virginia

Supreme Court of Virginia

The Supreme Court of Virginia is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It primarily hears appeals from the trial-level city and county Circuit Courts, as well as the criminal law, family law and administrative law cases that go through the Court of Appeals of Virginia. It is one of...

 explained in great detail the purpose of a writ of error coram nobis, quoting from a 1957 decision from the same court (Dobie v. Commonwealth):

The writ of error coram vobis, or coram nobis, is an ancient writ of the English common law. It was called coram nobis (before us) in King’s Bench because the king was supposed to preside in person in that court. It was called coram vobis (before you — the king’s justices) in Common Pleas, where the king was not supposed to preside. The difference related only to the form appropriate to each court and the distinction disappeared in this country when the need for it ended. 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 311, p. 561, n. 28. Mr. Minor says the proper designation here is coram vobis. IV Minor's Inst., 3 ed., Part I, pp. 1052-3.

The principal function of the writ is to afford to the court in which an action was tried an opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment was rendered, and which could not have been presented by a motion for a new trial, appeal or other existing statutory proceeding. Black's Law Dict., 3 ed., p. 1861; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 b., p. 145; Ford v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 718, 229 S.W.2d 470. It lies for an error of fact not apparent on the record, not attributable to the applicant’s negligence, and which if known by the court would have prevented rendition of the judgment. It does not lie for newly-discovered evidence or newly-arising facts, or facts adjudicated on the trial. It is not available where advantage could have been taken of the alleged error at the trial, as where the facts complained of were known before or at the trial, or where at the trial the accused or his attorney knew of the existence of such facts but failed to present them. 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1606 at p. 148; 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 312 c., pp. 563, 567.

State courts may treat the writ very differently from their federal counterparts. The Supreme Court of California

Supreme Court of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...

 ruled in 2009 that the state petition for writ of error coram nobis cannot be used to challenge an old conviction that later forms the basis for deportation

Deportation

Deportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation...

. For challenges to convictions, either at trial or in a plea bargain

Plea bargain

A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor offers the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a recommendation of a lighter than the maximum sentence.A plea bargain allows criminal defendants to...

, that have deportation as a collateral consequence

Collateral consequence

Collateral consequences are the effects of a given action or inaction that are unintended, unknown, or at least not explicit. A collateral consequence may simply be one that is beyond the scope of consideration....

, California courts require a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court observed that "The writ of error coram nobis is a nonstatutory, common law remedy whose origins trace back to an era in England in which appeals and new trial motions were unknown." The Court noted how limited the writ is in California, and expressly declared federal coram nobis law to be inapplicable. In California, coram nobis essentially requires a fact, not going to the facts of the case (e.g. guilt or innocence) that would have prevented the rendition of the judgment.

Limits

Writs of coram nobis cannot be used to address issues of law previously ruled upon by the court but only to address errors of fact that were not known by the defendant at time of trial or plea bargain, and were knowingly withheld during and after trial or plea agreement from judges and defendants by prosecutors; and which might have altered the verdict were they presented at the trial; or in the case of a plea agreement, where the defendant would not have agreed to the plea had he been made aware of the unknown fact. For example, where a defendant agrees to a plea agreement. However the fact that the resulting conviction will have a direct consequence such as lifetime registration as a sex offender, has been withheld from the defendant. Obviously, the prosecutor is aware of such a thing, and defendant's attorney should certainly also be aware. Where this fact is withheld from the defendant, he is now prejudiced in that had he known the fact of lifetime registration he would not have plead guilty. The writ of coram nobis can be used to overturn such a plea agreement. If the defendant is still in custody however, he would petition for relief under Habeas corpus.

Writ abolished in civil cases

In United States federal courts, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has 7 months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the...

, under rule 60 (e) abolished the writ of coram nobis in civil cases. However, in United States v. Morgan, the Supreme Court held that coram nobis was still available in federal court for criminal cases.

Examples

One relatively well-known example was in regard to the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States

Korematsu v. United States

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II....

(1944), which upheld a conviction pertaining to the World War II

World War II

World War II, or the Second World War , was a global conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, involving most of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis...

 Japanese American internment

Japanese American internment

Japanese-American internment was the relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of approximately 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on...

. In 1984, a federal district court judge granted a writ of coram nobis, overturning the conviction.

In another case, Alger Hiss

Alger Hiss

Alger Hiss was an American lawyer, government official, author, and lecturer. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official...

, convicted in 1950 on two counts of perjury for lying under oath about having spied for the Soviet Union in the 1930s, filed for a writ of coram nobis in the 1970s, after the FBI released certain records that Hiss argued showed that he had not received a fair trial (and after Richard Nixon, a leading voice against Hiss on the HUAC committee, was disgraced by the Watergate scandal). A federal district court denied the petition, holding that the documents "raise no real question whatsoever, let alone a reasonable doubt, as to Hiss's guilt," that "[t]he trial was a fair one by any standard," and that "[t]he jury verdict rendered in 1950 was amply supported by the evidence — the most damaging aspects of which were admitted by Hiss."