Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Second Circuit -- Young v. Conway

Concurrence/dissent from denial of en banc for Wade/4A claim.  A must-read.

Dissent 1: Fourth Amendment claims are barred from Habeas challenge unless there was no full and fair opportunity to litigate the question in the state court.  State interpretation was correct, in addition to not unreasonable.  Pinholster bars consideration of extrinsic social science evidence.  Circuit split alleged on whether Stone threshold is waivable.

Dissent 2: Yep.

Concurrence responds point by point.  Also points out that en banc is a high threshold.

Young v. Conway
Compiled by D.E. Frydrychowski, who is, not incidentally, not giving you legal advice.

Category tags above are sporadically maintained Do not rely. Do not rely. Do not rely.

Author's SSRN page here.