Summary

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 …

We of course agree that if a trial is in fact dominated by a mob, so that the jury is intimidated and the trial judge yields, and so that there is an actual interference with the course from due process of law in the proper sense of that term. And if the State, supplying no corrective process, carries into execution a judgment of death or imprisonment based upon a verdict thus produced by mob domination, the State deprives the accused of his life of liberty without due process of law.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 …

If every man convicted of crime in a state court may thereafter resort to the federal court and by swearing, as advised, that certain allegations of fact tending to impeach his trial are "true to the best of his knowledge and belief," and thereby obtain as of right further review, another way has been added to a list already unfortunately long to prevent prompt punishment. The delays incident to enforcement of our criminal laws have become a national scandal and give serious alarm to those who observe.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 …

Moreover, if he is held in custody by reason of his conviction upon a criminal charge before a court having plenary jurisdiction over the subject-matter or offense, the place where it was committed, and the person of the prisoner, it results from the nature of the writ itself that he cannot have relief on habeas corpus. Mere errors in point of law, however serious, committed by a criminal court in the exercise of its jurisdiction over a case properly subject to its cognizance, cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus. That writ cannot be employed as a substitute for the writ or error.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature