YOUNG

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• Mancusi v. DeFORTE, 392 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1968)
  …rte's office was “unreasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.12 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. Those appeals culminated in a petition for certiorari to this Court, which was denied sub nom. De Grandis v. New York, 375 U. S. 868. DeForte’s petition for certiorari following direct appeal was denied in 1963, more than two years after the Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio. Under the rule laid down in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, DeForte is entitled to invoke the exclus…
• United States v. McLAUGHLIN, 525 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1975)
  …s neither search nor seizure, illegal or otherwise. United States v. Wilson, 492 F. 2d 1160, 1161 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 858, 95 S.Ct. [*520] 106, 42 L.Ed.2d 92 (1974); United States v. Zimple, 318 F. 2d 676, 678 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 375 U.S. 868, 84 S.Ct. 128, 11 L.Ed.2d 95 (1963). The attempted stop does not alter this conclusion. Only by holding that this attempted stop was not supported by founded suspicion would there be arguably a Wong Sun taint. However, this is an issue we need not…
• Whiteside v. United States, 346 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1965)
  …he post office in Kansas City, Missouri. This certainly constituted probative evidence from which the jury could very properly find that the check was in fact mailed. See and compare United States v. Zimple, 318 F. 2d 676 (7 Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 868, 84 S.Ct. 128, 11 L.Ed.2d 95 (1963); United States v. Hines, 256 F. 2d 561 (2 Cir. 1958). Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that appellant knew that the check had been stolen. There was no direct evidence on this is…