General
CARLOS v. NEW YORK
396 U.S. 11924 L. Ed. 2d 303·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, they would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in Mr. Justice Harlan’s separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496 (1957), and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455 (1966).
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CARLOS v. NEW YORK
No. 524.
Decided December 8, 1969
Herald Price Fahringer and Eugene Gressman for petitioner.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed, Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, they would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in Mr. Justice Harlan’s separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496 (1957), and in his dissenting opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455 (1966).