Go to next caseFay v. Noia illustrates the ambiguity of the federal and state appellate processes. Noia had been convicted of a felony murder in the state of New York. A questionable confession had been offered into evidence by the state which Noia wanted to appeal. The time having elapsed for him to appeal to the state, he filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court. The law, however, stated that a person must exhaust all state courts before appealing to a federal court. Because of this, the state of New York admitted the confession was coerced, but argued that the appeal for it was inadmissible. The Supreme Court found in favor of Noia; Justice William Brennan asserted that the government had few duties to its citizens as important as the maintenence of their right to seek habeas corpus, which is based on the firm "principle... that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment."
Return to the list of cases
Return to home page