Summary

Marino v. Ragen — Opinion of the Court

If the federal guarantee of due process in a criminal trial is to have real significance in Illinois, it is imperative that men convicted in violation of their constitutional rights have an adequate opportunity to be heard in court. This opportunity is not adequate so long as they are required to ride the Illinois merry-go-round of habeas corpus, coram nobis, and writ of error before getting a hearing in a federal court.
Source: Wikisource

Marino v. Ragen — Opinion of the Court

That each is severely restricted is clear. [8] That any one is available as a matter of right is by no means clear. [9] And even if each has a limited function exclusive of the other two, it may well be that no one is adequate in a case where the petitioner must show a combination of facts to establish a violation of his constitutional rights. [10]
The Illinois scheme affords a theoretical system of remedies. In my judgment it is hardly more than theoretical. Experience has shown beyond all doubt that, in any practical sense, the remedies available there are inadequate.
Source: Wikisource

Marino v. Ragen — Opinion of the Court

Petitioner sought certiorari in this Court, and when called upon for a response, Illinois confessed error. While I concur in the Court's judgment, the light which the confession of error sheds on the Illinois procedural labyrinth confirms the growing conviction that Illinois offers no adequate remedy to prisoners situated as is the present petitioner.
The trouble with Illinois is not that it offers no procedure. It is that it offers too many, and makes them so intricate and ineffective that in practical effect they amount to none.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature