People v. Cruz

2 Citing cases

  1. Cruz v. Alexander

    708 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 3 times
    Assuming that Title III claims are subject to habeas review because the district court reached the merits of the claim, but expressing “no view” as to the district court's preliminary holding that Stone does not extend to Title III claims

    Leave to appeal the denial of the motion to vacate was denied. On the direct appeal the conviction was thereafter affirmed by the Appellate Division without opinion, People v. Cruz, 41 A.D.2d 1027, 343 N.Y.S.2d 786 (1st Dep't 1973), and by the Court of Appeals with opinion, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 314 N.E.2d 39, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, modified, 35 N.Y.2d 708, 320 N.E.2d 274, 361 N.Y.S.2d 641 (1974). The Court of Appeals explicitly considered the wiretapping claim and rejected it.

  2. Cruz v. Alexander

    477 F. Supp. 516 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)   Cited 26 times
    Finding "unconscionable breakdown" where trial court, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals all failed to "make a reasoned inquiry" into petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim

    Petitioner Eduardo Cruz ("Cruz") was convicted of possession of explosive substances in the New York Supreme Court, and was sentenced in 1971 to a term of seven years. His conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, People v. Cruz, 41 A.D.2d 1027, 343 N.Y.S.2d 786 (1st Dep. 1973), and by the New York Court of Appeals, People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 362, 357 N.Y.S.2d 709, 314 N.E.2d 39, mod., 35 N.Y.2d 708, 361 N.Y.S.2d 641, 320 N.E.2d 274 (1974). In this habeas corpus proceeding, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1976), petitioner seeks to set aside his conviction on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of the federal wiretapping statute, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. (1976), ("Title III") and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.