—would apparently allow the writ if there was evidence which if known would have released the defendant even though the issue was litigated.

—stating that statute encompassed all issues related to issuance of new trial and therefore coram nobis relief was inapplicable

"It seems highly probably that in all cases of newly discovered evidence touching exclusively the merits of the issue actually tried and determined there can be no relief, under any circumstances, at the hands of the court. To open the door to such inquiry would be to create a condition wherein the judgments of courts would have no finality, and thus be fruitful of greater …

—no show-ing that alleged perjuring prosecuting witness, in statutory rape case, would testify so differently as to acquit the defendant.

The same court has held, however, that it is "the general rule, that the writ will not be issued to correct an error involving a question that has been adjudicated."

If newly discovered evidence showed that petitioner was wrongly convicted, it furnishes a basis for application to the pardoning power but does not warrant a new trial under the writ of error coram nobis.

It seems that the general basis for refusing to allow criminal cases to be reopened after affirmance on appeal was the resulting instability which such practice would have on conviction of crime in the state.

A reading of these cases shows the statement that coram nobis might be available to bring new facts to the attention of the court to be dicta at best.

Notwithstanding the existence of a statute which contains all of the elements of the common law writ, the extraordinary common law remedy is recognized.

Comparative Decision Making Historically, the discretionary executive clemency process has been viewed as the proper avenue for introducing newly discovered evidence and arguments of actual innocence