This appeal is prosecuted by Chester Merrifield from a judgment of the Jeffer-' son Circuit Court, Criminal Division, denying him a writ of coram nobis. His sole 'ground for reversal of the judgment is that newly discovered evidence has becomе available, the effect of which establishes that his conviction wаs erroneously obtained. He asserts that, in the event he is. granted a new trial, his innocence could now be established by such evidence.
Appellant was convicted of the murder of Alvin L. Keown, a Jefferson Cоunty Police Officer, and sentenced to death. The judgment was affirmed. Merrifield v. Commonwealth, Ky.,
The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy which will issue for the judicial correction of a wrong сommitted in the administration of criminal justice resulting in the deprivation of lifе or liberty without due process of law. However, it is available only аfter all other judicial processes have been exhausted. Sрears v. Commonwealth, Ky.,
The newly discovered evidеnce, upon which appellant relies, appears in the аffidavits of C. J. Malone, R. E. Ratliff, Jr., R. E. O’Leary (all convicted felons) and Pauline Griffith. Thе affidavits of Malone and Griffith merely tend to contradict a statement made by Thomas Riggs, who had testified at appellant’s former trial, that hе was not acquainted with the appellant prior to the ocсasion on which the police officer was shot and killed. In effect the statements contained in these two affidavits, are merely an attack on the credibility of Thomas Riggs. Impeaching testimony of this charаcter has no probative value, nor is it a type of fact to bе considered as a basis for coram nobis.
The other two affidavits filed herein were made by Ratliff and O’Leary. Both affiants are convictеd felons and are presently incarcerated in the same prison as the appellant. Their statements are peculiarly similar in that each claims he was present on the occasion when оfficer Keown was fatally shot and each states that appellant was not the person who did the shooting. Affiants further state that appellant did not know they had witnessed the crime until shortly before this action wаs instituted. However, neither of these affiants identify the person they saw fire the shots, nor attempt to furnish any description of that person. When we look to the evidence upon which the appellant was сonvicted it appears that three witnesses testified that they saw appellant fire the shots which killed the police officer.
The appellant seeks by these affidavits to again put in issue the ultimate fаct of his guilt which has been determined by regular judicial processes. Giving full сredence to affiants’ statements, we conclude that they are wholly insufficient to authorize a finding that the trial court abused his discretion in denying the writ. Cowan v. Commonwealth, Ky.,
Judgment affirmed.