252 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 657 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus, holding that federal courts should defer to state court decisions on the merits when federal standards have been met.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court's findings were supported by evidence and dispositive of the claims.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-11-21
·cited 5×
The court held that the petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted because the state courts relied on independent and adequate state-law procedural grounds, and the petitioner failed to establish cause for the default or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
-
The dissenting opinion argues that the state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on first-degree (felony) murder in a capital case violated due process and equal protection. This refusal stemmed from an inconsistent and arbitrary application of Missouri law by the state ap
-
The court held that the trial court erred by precluding mitigating evidence regarding Petitioner's drug and alcohol abuse and cousin's dominance, violating the Eighth Amendment, and granted a new sentencing hearing on that claim.
-
766 F.2d 203·
5th Cir.·
1985-07-22
·cited 5×
The Texas rule requiring a defendant to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims regarding marital privilege, undisclosed evidence, and unconstitutional search and seizure lacked merit.
-
The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel nor a fair trial, and that the district court correctly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The Court found that the Petitioner's waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing and intelligent due to his severe intellectual deficits, and therefore his confession should have been suppressed.
-
The court held that the pretrial publicity did not rise to the level of presumed prejudice and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for individual and sequestered voir dire.
-
The court held that the Texas capital sentencing scheme, including its special issues, is constitutional and that the district court properly deferred to state court findings of fact. The court also found no unconstitutional deprivation of mental health expert assistance.
-
The court held that the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to strike black venirepersons violated the petitioner's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel does not constitute cause to excuse a procedural default, and inaccurate parole advice does not automatically taint a guilty plea without proof of prejudice.
-
The court held that the state court erred by applying the wrong legal standard to determine the defendant's competency to waive his constitutional rights and enter guilty pleas.
-
The court held that the jury instructions on reasonable doubt announced a new rule not retroactively applicable to this habeas corpus case, and that the defendant was competent throughout his trial. The court also found that the confession was admissible and that no Brady violati
-
The court held that the trial judge's televised remarks did not demonstrate inadequate state court factfinding procedures or warrant relief under Rule 60(b).
-
The district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact regarding the effect of the Yamin letter on the petitioner's guilty plea.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to use exculpatory forensic evidence without an evidentiary hearing, and remanded that claim for further proceedings. Other claims of ineffective assistan
-
The court held that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to support two aggravating circumstances found by the jury, which were necessary for the imposition of the death penalty.
-
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop facts regarding a police report containing impeachment evidence and his trial counsel's knowledge of it.
-
The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
-
941 F.2d 1015·
10th Cir.·
1991-07-19
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with supervening authority.
-
The court held that the district court correctly applied the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to state court findings of fact when reviewing a habeas petition for insufficient evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
936 F.2d 444·
9th Cir.·
1991-06-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the exclusion of alibi testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, his counsel's performance was not ineffective, and the imposition of consecutive life sentences did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
-
-
919 F.2d 505·
8th Cir.·
1990-11-23
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no prejudice from the improper jury instruction or ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that a state court's finding that a petitioner would not have pleaded guilty if properly admonished is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that a federal court cannot disregard such findings by labeling them mix
-
The court held that the district court properly applied the presumption of correctness to state court findings and that the petitioner's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and he received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The dissent argues that the presumption that an initial confession has a coercive effect on subsequent confessions was not rebutted in this case.
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact and by applying an improper standard of prejudice. The court found the state court's factual determinations were supported by the record and that the defendant failed to demon
-
The dissenting judge would vacate the judgment dismissing the writ and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the jailhouse informant was not a government agent acting to deliberately elicit incriminating statements.
-
826 F.2d 766·
8th Cir.·
1987-08-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the admission of evidence of prior fires, insufficient evidence, and refusal of a jury instruction did not violate due process, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
-
The court held that precluding an alibi witness solely as a sanction for noncompliance with notice statutes, absent a showing of substantial prejudice, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the district court erred in failing to review the sufficiency of evidenti
-
Any error in admitting the lineup identification and the defendant's incriminating statements for impeachment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The dissenting judge would deny the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to prejudice, rather than insufficient evidence, does not bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
810 F.2d 118·
6th Cir.·
1987-02-02
·cited 4×
A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on intent can be harmless error if the evidence of intent is overwhelming and the predicate facts conclusively establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
-
The court denied the petitioner's motion for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding no substantial showing of a federal right denial.
-
The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated during his state court conviction, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's determination of the double jeopardy claim, but affirmed the denial of the writ because the double jeopardy claim lacked merit.
-
793 F.2d 109·
5th Cir.·
1986-06-30
·cited 4×
A Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief has not exhausted state remedies if they failed to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for review of their conviction, even if review is discretionary.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the Iowa Supreme Court's findings regarding the independent source doctrine should be presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the majority improperly disregarded these findings.
-
The court held that alleged jury misconduct, failure to produce a witness, and exclusion of testimony did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
-
The court held that a state court's factual finding regarding a habeas petitioner's understanding of potential punishment is presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and an erroneous statement by the sentencing judge does not invalidate a guilty plea if the petitioner was othe
-
The court held that a state is not constitutionally required to provide a defendant with a psychiatrist, and that the prisoner's claims were either foreclosed by precedent, barred by procedural default, or not supported by the evidence.
-
The court held that the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for compelling the defendant to wear manacles during trial violated his due process rights, and this error was not harmless.
-
741 F.2d 240·
9th Cir.·
1984-08-21
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred in finding procedural default on the involuntariness claim, and remanded for consideration of that claim on the merits.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied habeas corpus relief, as the state court's findings on mental fitness and impartiality of the jury were entitled to deference.
-
The court held that the state trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever offenses and that the in-court identification was admissible.