Lawrence Charles Young v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary

Ninth Circuit

Lawrence Charles Young v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary

443 F.2d 378, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9483

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 18, 1971·No. 26851·Published

Opinion

*379 PER CURIAM:

The order of the district court is affirmed.

The main point asserted in this collateral attack was improper electronic surveillance. This point is lost by virtue of our Bush v. United States, 438 F.2d 641 (1971), and United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971).

A point is made about not letting counsel for him in the district court be heard. Were it not for the subsequent White and Bush cases, there might be prejudice. But in view of events, there was none.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*379 PER CURIAM:

The order of the district court is affirmed.

The main point asserted in this collateral attack was improper electronic surveillance. This point is lost by virtue of our Bush v. United States, 438 F.2d 641 (1971), and United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971).

A point is made about not letting counsel for him in the district court be heard. Were it not for the subsequent White and Bush cases, there might be prejudice. But in view of events, there was none.

Lawrence Charles Young v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, 443 F.2d 378, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9483 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

443 F.2d 378 (Lawrence Charles Young v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related