Strawhacker v. State (Majority, with Concurring and Dissenting)Annotate this Case
In 1990, Petitioner was convicted of rape. Petitioner later asked the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that it may consider whether a writ of error coram nobis. The petition arose from the Department of Justice’s repudiation of testimony of an FBI hair-comparison expert, who testified at Petitioner’s trial. The government admitted that its agent gave invalid expert scientific testimony at Petitioner’s criminal jury trial. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that, although Petitioner’s claim may not neatly fall within one of the four established categories, Petitioner stated sufficient grounds for the Court to find that his writ may be meritorious.