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
-
715 F.2d 1174·
7th Cir.·
1983-08-19
·cited 29×
A criminal defendant's ignorance of specific jury attributes, such as the right to participate in jury selection or the requirement of a substantial majority vote for conviction, does not render their waiver of a jury trial constitutionally invalid.
-
The court held that neither defendant demonstrated an actual conflict of interest arising from joint representation, and therefore, neither is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The district court erred in denying habeas corpus petitions without compelling the state court record to determine if petitioners received a full and fair hearing.
-
A juror's prior professional experience counseling a rape victim, without more, does not create implied bias sufficient to warrant a new trial, especially when the state courts found no actual bias and the juror testified to impartiality.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to present a debatable issue for appeal regarding racial discrimination in the death penalty and that the inevitable discovery doctrine barred his due process claim concerning evidence admissibility.
-
The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his claims regarding competency, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, trial court bias, and jury selection lack merit or are unexhausted.
-
The court held that an incomplete trial transcript did not deny a meaningful appeal and that the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.
-
-
The court held that a federal court is not required to grant a new evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case solely because the petitioner lacked counsel in the state court proceeding, and that a defendant is not entitled to appellate review unless they knowingly and intelligen
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the jury selection process did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the sentencing judge and jury's refusal to consider non-statutory mitigating evidence violated Lockett v. Ohio, but affirmed the district court's denial of other claims.
-
The court held that a district court must independently review the state court record for mixed questions of fact and law in habeas corpus petitions, but not for purely factual or purely legal questions. Counsel should be appointed in death penalty habeas cases on remand due to c
-
The court held that the Murphy deposition should be added to the record on appeal, but the Cole deposition should not. The court remanded the issue of the 1984 affidavits to the district court to determine if the failure to present them earlier was inexcusable neglect.
-
A federal habeas court is not required to sua sponte obtain state court record exhibits if the petitioner has not produced them or demonstrated an inability to do so.
-
The court held that even if an oral confession was obtained in violation of Miranda, a subsequent written confession obtained after proper warnings is admissible if the oral confession was voluntary, and that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
781 F.2d 654·
8th Cir.·
1986-01-14
·cited 26×
The court held that the petitioner's allegation of systematic exclusion of Black persons from jury service was sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing, but his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed due to lack of prejudice.
-
The court held that the statistical evidence presented was too diffused to demonstrate a likelihood of racial prejudice affecting the particular jury, thus not entitling the defendant to have prospective jurors questioned about racial bias as a matter of due process.
-
The court held that a habeas corpus petitioner's claims of an involuntarily entered guilty plea, denial of effective assistance of counsel, and denial of the right of allocution were correctly rejected by the district court.
-
The court held that the defendant may have been deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to investigate and present critical evidence regarding the prosecution's key witness's mental condition.
-
The court held that the Miranda warning given was constitutionally adequate and the petitioner's statement was voluntarily made, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas petition.
-
The Court held that an uncoerced statement following Miranda warnings establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent, and that a suspect must unambiguously invoke this right to cease questioning.
-
The court held that the district court erred in broadly applying Stone v. Powell to bar all claims, but affirmed the denial of habeas relief because the search consent was voluntary and the other claims lacked merit.
-
659 F.2d 402·
4th Cir.·
1981-09-04
·cited 25×
Violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) trial-before-return provisions are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus, but can be grounds for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prosecutorial immunity bars claims against Maryland officials, but claims agains
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the petitioners and that the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the search of the suitcase because they disclaimed ownership and possession.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that the admission of his statements did not violate Miranda, affirming the denial of his habeas petition.
-
The court held that the state courts failed to provide a full and fair evidentiary hearing on the defendant's mental competency at the time of his guilty plea, entitling him to a federal evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the state trial court did not violate Case's constitutional rights by refusing to conduct a post-verdict voir dire of the jury based on equivocal allegations of misconduct. The court also held that the denial of a continuance for a witness whose testimony was
-
The court held that while voluntariness of a waiver is subject to plenary review, a trial court's direct exposure to the evidence and the defendant can provide valuable insight, warranting a remand for its determination.
-
The State's failure to disclose a police firearms worksheet indicating the gun was inoperable violated Brady v. Maryland, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding petitioner's claims without merit, but remanded to the district court to consider the effects of a pending Supreme Court decision.
-
691 F.2d 730·
5th Cir.·
1982-11-15
·cited 24×
The court held that a petitioner's delay in filing a habeas petition is excused until the right asserted in the petition legally exists, and the state must demonstrate prejudice occurring after that point. The court also held that ineffective assistance of counsel does not consti
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner's claims of newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a chilled right to testify were without merit or unexhausted.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional error in the prosecution's actions regarding suppressed evidence, perjured testimony, or prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The district court had the power to order a state prisoner's release pending appeal from a habeas corpus grant, but lacked authority to direct state courts to fix bail or accept recognizance.
-
The court held that improper references to a "mug book" containing photographs of suspects, while not ideal, did not constitute plain error and did not deny the defendant due process, nor was his trial counsel ineffective.
-
-
The court held that the defendant's claims of present insanity and discriminatory application of the death penalty statute were insufficient to warrant a certificate of probable cause or a stay of execution.
-
The court held that the State violated due process by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence material to the defense, requiring the convictions to be set aside.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to establish that the jury was sequestered at the sheriff's home and that the courtroom security measures, while potentially problematic, were reasonable given the threats and circumstances, thus not depriving him of a fair trial or his pr
-
649 F.2d 543·
8th Cir.·
1981-05-14
·cited 23×
The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony and the use of information from tape recordings, even if obtained unconstitutionally, were harmless errors beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the retrial after a mistrial due to jury deadlock did not violate doub
-
The court held that a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea breaks the chain of prior constitutional claims, and therefore, the denial of habeas corpus relief was proper.
-
874 F.2d 1280·
9th Cir.·
1989-05-05
·cited 22×
The court held that the defendant's sentence must be reversed due to procedural issues in place at the time of trial regarding capital punishment hearings.
-
The court held that the jury's finding of agency as an aggravating factor was permissible and that even if one aggravating factor was invalid, the death sentence could still stand. The court also found no constitutional error in the jury selection or the admission of evidence of
-
The court held that summary judgment should not have been granted on the claim that Kleba was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his counsel's failure to investigate the whereabouts of an alibi witness.
-
The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if the state court's finding of competency was supported, requiring a remand for further proceedings. Other claims were rejected.
-
The court held that the defendant's procedural default in failing to raise a timely objection to the identification testimony under Mississippi law barred federal habeas review, and that the evidence was otherwise sufficient to support the conviction.
-
744 F.2d 475·
5th Cir.·
1984-10-22
·cited 22×
The court held that the enhanced sentence was improper due to insufficient evidence regarding the timing of prior convictions, but affirmed the denial of relief on other grounds.
-
The court held that the post-trial evidence of the petitioner's alleged incompetency did not retroactively render his trial unfair, and thus, the trial court was not constitutionally required to hold a post-trial competency hearing.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without reviewing the full state court record, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8).
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of portions of accomplice statements adopted by the appellant constituted admissible adoptive confessions, and any remaining hearsay was harmless error. The court also found that the admission of polygraph evidence, to which the appellant