Supreme Court of the United States, 1960

Wilde v. Wyoming

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 16, 1960 · Per Curiam

362 U.S. 607; 80 S. Ct. 900; 4 L. Ed. 2d 985; 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1148 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Petitioner pro se., Norman B. Gray, Attorney General of Wyoming, and W. M. Haight, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

United States of America Ex Rel. Thomas Meers, Relator-Appellee v. Walter H. Wilkins, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, New York (2d Cir. 1964)
Mansfield v. Williamson Cty (5th Cir. 2022)
Donald C. Christman v. Edward v. Hanrahan (7th Cir. 1974)
State v. Gray (La. 1973)
United States v. Ronald A. Mayersohn (2d Cir. 1971)
Branch v. State (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969)
Walker v. Bishop (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1967)
United States v. Soblen (District Court, S.D. New York 1961)
Brady v. Maryland (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)
State v. Parker (Or. 1963)
Cheatham v. Thompson (District Court, D. Kansas 2021)
Robinson, Timothy Lee (Tex. App. 2015)
State v. Miller (Wis. 1967)
People v. Fein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1965)
Strosnider v. Warden (Md. 1962)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. In petitions for writs of habeas corpus, filed with the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Wyoming and with the Wyoming Supreme Court, the petitioner alleged, among other grounds for relief, that his plea of guilty to second degree murder in December 1945, upon which he received a life sentence, was induced when he “had no counsel present” and that the prosecutor wilfully suppressed the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the alleged crime which would have exonerated the petitioner. It does not appear from the record that an adequate hearing on these allegations was held in the District Court, or any hearing of any nature in, or by direction of, the Supreme Court. We find nothing in our examination of the record to justify the denial of hearing on these allegations. The judgment is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for a hearing thereon. Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116; Sublett v. Adams, 362 U. S. 143.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.