Unger v. Young

571 U.S. 1015, 187 L. Ed. 2d 409, 134 S. Ct. 20, 82 U.S.L.W. 3279, 2013 WL 5975323, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8040
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 12, 2013·No. No. 13–95.·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

More fundamentally, the Second Circuit's disagreement is not with the New York Court of Appeals; it is with us. Mrs. Sykes unquestionably had a substantial opportunity to observe the burglar. We held in Wade that "the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act" favors finding that an independent source exists. 388 U.S., at 241, 87 S.Ct. 1926. The Second Circuit held, to the contrary, that such an opportunity does not suggest the existence of an independent source in the circumstances of this case. Wade simply does not leave that option on the table.

The Second Circuit's decision creates loopholes in both Pinholster and Wade In my view, the importance of this issue warrants review at this time. I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.

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

Unger v. Young, 571 U.S. 1015, 187 L. Ed. 2d 409, 134 S. Ct. 20, 82 U.S.L.W. 3279, 2013 WL 5975323, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8040 (2013).

571 U.S. 1015 (Unger v. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Rohena
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2026
State v. Evans (Concurrence)
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2025
State v. Evans
352 Conn. 794 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2025)
YOUNG, RUDOLPH, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
People v. Young
139 A.D.3d 1360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
United States v. Rutherford
71 F. Supp. 3d 386 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Marcos Poventud v. City of New York
750 F.3d 121 (Second Circuit, 2014)