317 U.S. 213 (1942), 50, Pyle v. Kansas

Docket Nº:No. 50
Citation:317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214
Party Name:Pyle v. Kansas
Case Date:December 07, 1942
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 213

317 U.S. 213 (1942)

63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214




No. 50

United States Supreme Court

Dec. 7, 1942

Argued November 9, 10, 1942



1. Habeas corpus is a remedy available in the state courts of Kansas to persons imprisoned in violation of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. P. 215.

2. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the petitioner is imprisoned upon a conviction obtained through the use of testimony known by the prosecuting officers to have been perjured, and through the suppression by them of evidence favorable to him, sufficiently alleges a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and the denial of the petition without a determination as to the truth of the allegations was error. P. 216.

3. In view of the inexpert drafting of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus in this case, the remand to the state court is without prejudice to any procedure there designed to achieve greater particularity in the allegations. P. 216.


Certiorari, 316 U.S. 654, to review the affirmance of a judgment denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

MURPHY, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner seeks to review an order of the Supreme Court of Kansas denying his application for writ of habeas corpus. In 1935, petitioner was convicted by a jury in a Kansas state court upon an information charging him

Page 214

with the crimes of murder and robbery. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and he was [63 S.Ct. 178] sentenced to life imprisonment under his conviction for murder, and to a term of from 10 to 21 years for robbery. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kansas. State v. Pyle, 143 Kan. 772, 57 P.2d 93.

On November 20, 1941, petitioner, a layman acting in his own behalf, filed an original application for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Kansas. The crude allegations of this application charge that his imprisonment was the result of a deprivation of rights guaranteed him by the Constitution of the United States, in that the Kansas prosecuting authorities obtained his conviction by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured, and by the suppression of testimony favorable to him. Filed with this application...

To continue reading