Korematsu v. United States
584 F. Supp. 1406, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17410, 16 Fed. R. Serv. 1231 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may grant a writ of coram nobis to vacate a criminal conviction where there is evidence of a fundamental error, such as prosecutorial misconduct involving the deliberate withholding of critical evidence from the court, that resulted in a manifest injustice.
Facts:
- Fred Korematsu, a native-born U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry, was known to be loyal to the United States.
- Following the U.S. declaration of war on Japan, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the creation of military exclusion zones.
- Commanding General J.L. DeWitt issued Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34, requiring all persons of Japanese ancestry to be excluded from Military Area No. 1 in California.
- Korematsu, a resident of Military Area No. 1, remained in the zone in violation of the order.
- The government's primary justification for the exclusion order was General DeWitt's 'Final Report,' which claimed military necessity based on threats of espionage and sabotage.
- Internal government memoranda, including information from the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission, contradicted the factual claims of military necessity in DeWitt's report.
- These contradictory reports, which stated there was no evidence of illegal radio signaling or other espionage, were knowingly withheld from the courts during Korematsu's original legal proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1942, Fred Korematsu was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a court of first instance) for violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34.
- Korematsu's conviction was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
- On January 19, 1983, Korematsu filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to vacate his 1942 conviction.
- In response, the government filed a counter-motion to vacate the conviction and dismiss the underlying indictment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a), rather than opposing Korematsu's petition on its merits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the deliberate omission of critical, contradictory evidence by the government in its presentation to the courts constitute a fundamental error sufficient to warrant vacating a conviction through a writ of coram nobis?
Opinions:
Majority - Patel, District Judge.
Yes. The deliberate omission of critical evidence constitutes a fundamental error that resulted in a manifest injustice, warranting the vacation of a conviction through a writ of coram nobis. The writ is an extraordinary remedy appropriate for correcting errors in criminal convictions when other remedies, like habeas corpus, are unavailable because the sentence has been served. Here, there is substantial evidence that the government deliberately omitted relevant information and provided misleading information to the courts regarding the military necessity of the exclusion orders. The government knowingly withheld reports from the FCC and the Department of Justice that directly contradicted General DeWitt's 'Final Report,' which was the primary factual basis for the government's case. This failure to disclose critical information, peculiarly within the government's knowledge, impaired the judicial process and presents the 'compelling circumstance' required to grant the writ and correct a profound injustice.
Analysis:
This decision is legally significant because it judicially acknowledges the governmental misconduct that underpinned the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Korematsu v. United States. While the district court explicitly states it cannot overturn the Supreme Court's legal precedent, by vacating the conviction on the grounds of factual misrepresentation, it effectively nullifies the original case's factual foundation. The ruling powerfully demonstrates the purpose of the writ of coram nobis as a tool to correct historical injustices based on newly discovered evidence of fundamental error. It serves as a stark precedent on the ethical obligations of government lawyers to present a full and accurate record to the courts, especially in cases involving national security and individual rights.
