Second Trial of Coram Nobis Relief Fails

Post 5422

Coram Nobis is an Extraordinary Remedy

In United States Of America v. David Judd Disiere, Criminal Action No. 99-151-SDD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (August 10, 2026 David Judd Disiere was convicted in 2000 after pleading guilty to misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4 in connection with allegations involving a scheme to influence the resolution of an investigation into insurance companies he owned.

He was sentenced to probation and a fine, did not directly appeal, and completed probation in 2003. After an earlier unsuccessful postconviction challenge, Disiere filed a second petition for writ of error coram nobis in 2024, claiming his plea was coerced by prosecutors’ threats relating to an employee allegation, that those threats were concealed from the court, that his counsel was ineffective, and that the factual basis did not establish the elements of misprision.

This is Disiere’s second attempt at obtaining coram nobis relief. His first Writ of Error Coram Nobis was filed on April 9, 2001, and challenged his conviction on the ground that “the factual basis he helped draft was insufficient to support the misprision charge.”  Because he was still serving a term of probation in April 2001, and thus “in custody” for purposes of habeas relief, the Court converted his appeal coram nobis into a challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

LAW:

Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available only to correct fundamental errors resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice when the petitioner is no longer in custody and no other remedy is available. A petitioner must show continuing civil disabilities, an error of sufficient magnitude, and sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier. The writ is not a substitute for direct appeal or a means to relitigate claims that were or reasonably could have been raised in a prior § 2255 proceeding.

DISCUSSION:

The government argued that the petition was untimely because Disiere knew, or should have known, the facts underlying his claims at the time of his plea or shortly thereafter. The court agreed. It found that the alleged threats, concealment, and ineffective assistance were all based on facts available to Disiere in 2000, yet he did not raise them on direct appeal, in his earlier postconviction petition, or during probation.

Later-discovered evidence concerning counsel’s alleged concealment, the prosecutor’s later professional misconduct, FOIA delays, and affidavits from former FBI agents did not supply a sound reason for the long delay.

ANALYSIS:

The court focused on timeliness rather than reaching the merits of whether the conviction involved fundamental error. It reasoned that Disiere’s present claims depended on information known to him when he entered the plea, including the alleged prosecutorial pressure and the absence of those alleged promises or threats from the plea proceeding. His fear-of-reprisal argument was undermined by the fact that he previously attacked the plea on other grounds. His actual-innocence theory largely repeated arguments rejected in the prior § 2255 proceeding, and the FBI affidavits were not treated as newly discovered because he did not show they could not have been obtained earlier through diligence.

CONCLUSION:

The court denied Disiere’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because he failed to provide sound and justifiable reasons for waiting nearly two decades to seek relief on claims available much earlier, the petition was untimely and the court did not need to decide whether the alleged errors were fundamental.

ZALMA OPINION

Disiere’s failure to present sound and justifiable reason for his nearly twenty year delay in seeking coram nobis relief, or any other form of post conviction remedy, was fatal to the to his second try. Insurance criminals do as much as possible to avoid jail. He plead guilty to a crime where he failed to report a crime, that gave him only probation. Then, even after he completed the probation he tried a second coram nobis attempt only to be properly rejected by the court.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.