HATFIELD

v.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Duest v. State, 855 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2003)
  …r the harmless error standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), rather than the more stringent standard of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). See Singletary v. Duest, 507 U.S. 1048, 113 S.Ct. 1940, 123 L.Ed.2d 647 (1993). On remand, the Eleventh Circuit held that reliance on the subsequently vacated conviction for the prior violent felony aggravated constituted harmful error under Brecht. See Duest, 997 F. 2d at 1339-40. . T…
• Booker v. Singletary, 90 F.3d 440 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …State had not shown that the error was harmless under the Chapman standard. Duest, 967 F. 2d at 481-82. The Supreme Court, on certiorari, vacated our judgment and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Brecht." Singletary v. Duest, 507 U.S. 1048, 1049, 113 S.Ct. 1940, 1941, 123 L.Ed.2d 647 (1993).…
• Spivey v. Head, 207 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …the evidence, and 4) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense. See Duest v. Singletary, 967 F. 2d 472, 478 (11th Cir.1992), vacated and remanded, 507 U.S. 1048, 113 S.Ct. 1940, 123 L.Ed.2d 647, reinstated in relevant fart, 997 F. 2d 1336 (11th Cir.1993). In the first document, Davidson’s statement, she reported a number of things that could be construed as favorable to the defendant. She said that he had…

  ← 1 / 2 →