Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lefkowitz Vs. Newsome

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 19, 1975

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

67 entries 4 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Tollett Vs. Henderson US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1973
  2. Blackledge Vs. Perry US Supreme Court · May 20, 1974
  3. Mcmann Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · May 04, 1970
  4. United States Vs. Cox US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1837
  5. U.S. 283 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Lefkowitz v. Newsome
    Search
  6. U.S. 283 (1975) Lefkowitz v. Newsome
    Search
  7. to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied. This Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. Newsome v. New
    Search
  8. the New York Court of Appeals declared New York's loitering statute unconstitutional. People v. Berck
    Search
  9. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court, United States ex rel. Newsome v. Malcolm
    Search
  10. corpus proceeding, the petitioner relies primarily on this Court's decisions in the guilty plea trilogy of Brady v. United
    Search
  11. States, 397 U. S. 742 , McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  12. U. S. 759 , and Parker v. North
    Search
  13. Carolina, 397 U. S. 790 , and on our decision in Tollett v. Henderson
    Search
  14. the later assertion of constitutional challenges to the pretrial proceedings. This principle was reaffirmed in Tollett v. Henderson
    Search
  15. an adverse ruling in a pretrial hearing despite the fact that his conviction is based on a guilty plea. See McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  16. trial, in effect deliberately refuses to present his federal claims to the state court in the first instance. McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  17. a plea of guilty, the State acquires a legitimate expectation of finality in the conviction thereby obtained. Cf. Fay v. Noia
    Search
  18. the same label given to the pleas entered by the defendants in the Brady trilogy of cases and Tollett v. Henderson
    Search
  19. permitted similar appeals from denials of motions to suppress allegedly coerced confessions. See McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  20. Newsome appealed the dismissal, and, in light of this Court's holding on the custody question in Hensley v. Municipal
    Search
  21. vote, held that such a defendant may not pursue his constitutional claim on a federal habeas corpus petition. Mann v. Smith
    Search
  22. Since the guilty pleas in McMann v. Richardson
    Search
  23. of MR. JUSTICE WHITE, post at 420 U. S. 297 -298, that the question before us was answered in Parker v. North
    Search
  24. that this review ultimately includes the certiorari or appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Indeed, in Sibron v. New
    Search
  25. the defendant's constitutional claims unless there has been a deliberate bypass of the state procedures. See Fay v. Noia
    Search
  26. availability of federal habeas corpus depends upon functional reality, not upon an infatuation with labels. See Fay v. Noia
    Search
  27. by presenting his federal claims to the state courts on direct appeal. See Francisco v. Gathright
    Search
  28. In Fay v. Noia
    Search
  29. courts may pursue his constitutional claim on a federal habeas corpus petition. E.g., United States ex rel. Rogers v. Warden
    Search
  30. Molloy v. Follette
    Search
  31. Brady v. United
    Search
  32. Parker v. North
    Search
  33. The question almost answers itself. More importantly, however, it has already been answered by this Court in Parker v. North
    Search
  34. s plea should be set aside if the confession was involuntary and if it was the but-for cause of the plea. Parker v. State
    Search
  35. in North Carolina and then pleads guilty may assume, by reading the North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in Parker v. Page
    Search
  36. not their basic ingredient. In any event, the Court squarely and conclusively rejected the waiver rationale in Tollett v. Henderson
    Search
  37. of their supervisory powers over the administration of criminal justice in the federal system. See United States v. Sepe
    Search
  38. United States v. Mizell
    Search
  39. F.2d 97 (CA5 1973), and cases there cited. But see United States v. Dole
    Search
  40. McMann was a case involving a coerced confession claim in which the plea was entered before Jackson v. Denno
    Search
  41. It is true that Fourth Amendment claims are never attacks on the accuracy of the finding of factual guilt, Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  42. from guilty pleas as in the case of those which do, and the argument has therefore already been rejected. Tollett v. Henderson
    Search
  43. United States v. Sepe
    Search
  44. Sibron v. New
    Search
  45. of the differences for appeal purposes between a plea of guilty and a stipulation to evidence in United States v. Mizell
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Lefkowitz v. Newsome
    Search
  47. Newsome v. New
    Search
  48. People v. Berck
    Search
  49. Newsome v. Malcolm
    Search
  50. of Brady v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial