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 held that the state court's findings regarding custody and the voluntariness of the waiver of Miranda rights were entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and were supported by the record.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and that the petitioner waived her right against self-incrimination by testifying. The exclusion of jurors conscientiously opposed to the death penalty did not violate due process or fa
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no abuse of the writ, no incompetence to stand trial, no denial of choice of counsel, no ineffective assistance of counsel, no improper Faretta inquiry, no constitutional issue regarding the race of t
-
The court held that the petitioner abused the writ by failing to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his first habeas petition and that his other claims were procedurally defaulted without sufficient cause or prejudice.
-
The majority erred by making contrary factual findings and failing to decide a ripe constitutional question, exceeding its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
481 F.2d 152·
2d Cir.·
1973-06-14
·cited 39×
-
The court held that even if a state trial court improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant regarding the independence of an in-court identification, a federal court on habeas review can still determine independence from the record if adequate, and if independent, no c
-
The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance and that the search incident to arrest was reasonable.
-
A federal district court cannot rely on state court findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) without reviewing the state court record, especially when allegations of an unfair hearing or newly discovered evidence exist.
-
The court held that the majority opinion failed to consider the totality of circumstances in determining the voluntariness of the confession, selectively using facts and ignoring evidence of coercion.
-
The court held that the joint representation of co-defendants did not create an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, as the alternative defense theory was not plausible based on the evidence.
-
A defendant is deprived of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when his attorney refuses to participate in the trial, even if this is a deliberate tactic, because such a tactic fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
-
The admission of a child victim's hearsay statements, made under the stress of excitement from a startling event, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if they possess sufficient indicia of reliability, even if the child is unavailable to testify.
-
597 F.2d 991·
5th Cir.·
1979-06-29
·cited 37×
The court held that the attorney's failure to move for a mistrial after the prosecutor improperly revealed inadmissible prior convictions constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.
-
The court held that a defendant's attorney's failure to adequately investigate facts, inform the defendant of charges and consequences, and initiate plea negotiations constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, warranting habeas corpus relief.
-
The court affirmed the district court's orders releasing petitioners, holding that their claims for good behavior time credit were properly considered under the habeas corpus statute, which requires exhaustion of state remedies.
-
A federal court cannot summarily dismiss a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition without independently reviewing the state court's record and determining if due process was observed.
-
The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing and lacked sufficient findings to affirm the denial. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on prosecutorial misconduct and notice issues.
-
A guilty plea is involuntary if the defendant does not receive actual notice of the true nature of the charge against him or possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.
-
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court proceedings regarding competency, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
-
The court held that the district judge erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the Bruton rule, as the confessions of co-defendants interlocked and did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of the other habeas corpus claims.
-
The court held that the inmate's claims of incompetence and ineffective assistance of counsel warranted an evidentiary hearing, which had not been provided by the state court.
-
The court held that a confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible if the taint of the arrest is sufficiently attenuated by intervening circumstances, and that a suspect's subjective belief of immunity, absent police misrepresentation, does not render a Miranda waive
-
742 F.2d 262·
6th Cir.·
1984-08-08
·cited 34×
The court held that federal abstention is not appropriate in this case, as the appellant alleged extraordinary circumstances involving federal constitutional violations.
-
The court held that the petitioner's appeal should be reviewed on its merits, despite procedural irregularities, to avoid prejudice.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Florida Supreme Court's determination regarding the petitioner's Miranda rights was potentially unreasonable, particularly concerning the custody analysis, but ultimately found that Miranda warnings were not required because the petitioner was n
-
The court held that the jury instructions were so fundamentally flawed and riddled with constitutional errors that they rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, making harmless error analysis inappropriate.
-
817 F.2d 1499·
11th Cir.·
1987-06-01
·cited 33×
Prison grooming and dietary regulations are rationally related to substantial government interests and are not unconstitutional infringements on inmate religious freedom when balanced against penological objectives. The medical exemption for beards is not a less restrictive alter
-
The court held that a federal district court must grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas applicant when the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing, and the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the alleged faking of footprint casts, as the state court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the failure to voluntarily disclose the victim's statement
-
430 F.2d 100·
7th Cir.·
1970-08-19
·cited 33×
The court held that the revocation of probation without a hearing violates the basic requirements of due process, and therefore, the revocation was a nullity.
-
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on its interpretation of the Tedder standard and that Parker's Stromberg claim was procedurally barred.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness regarding a jury instruction and the failure to present psychiatric testimony, and that his claim regarding prosecutorial discretion was procedurally barred.
-
The court held that the state court's finding of specific intent to kill was supported by the evidence and that Wingo's other constitutional claims lacked merit.
-
The court held that material facts pertaining to the petitioner's federal constitutional claim were not adequately developed in the state court, necessitating an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact.
-
The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
-
636 F.2d 211·
8th Cir.·
1980-12-11
·cited 32×
The court held that the crimes were not committed in 'Indian Country,' prosecutorial remarks were not grounds for relief, and an illegal arrest does not void a conviction.
-
The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
-
A guilty plea is valid if entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, even if the state trial judge fails to explain all elements or lesser included offenses, provided the defendant understood the charge and consequences.
-
The state court's determination of a factual issue based solely on conflicting affidavits, without an evidentiary hearing, was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
-
The court held that the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is a factual determination entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the appellant waived his due process claim by failing to raise it on rehearing.
-
The court held that the admission of identification testimony from three eyewitnesses, tainted by suggestive police procedures, constituted a denial of due process.
-
The court held that the district court erred in disregarding the state court's findings of fact regarding consent to search, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and no statutory exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were met.
-
The federal court erred in granting habeas corpus relief because it failed to give presumptive weight to the state court's factual findings, and the petitioner did not provide convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
-
The court held that the facts relevant to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim were not adequately developed in state court, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.