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 claims not presented to state courts must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, while exhausted claims can be decided on the merits.
-
411 F.2d 805·
10th Cir.·
1969-05-26
·cited 22×
The court held that the federal district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing when the state court had provided an adequate hearing and the federal court properly reviewed the state proceedings.
-
The court held that the testimony of witnesses discovered through lawful means, even if obtained after police misconduct, is admissible under the independent source doctrine. The admission of marijuana was error but harmless, and prosecutorial remarks did not render the trial fun
-
The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition or denying the motion for appointment of counsel, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, fairly adjudicated in state court, or did not warrant federal intervention.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his attorney's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, as the attorney's actions were within the bounds of reasonably competent representation and the entry wa
-
The admission of Germany's incriminating statement was harmless error, and the state court's factual findings regarding the compulsory process claim are presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
644 F.2d 543·
6th Cir.·
1981-03-02
·cited 21×
The Sixth Circuit held that while a federal court can entertain a pretrial habeas petition for a speedy trial claim to enforce the state's duty to provide a prompt trial, the district court erred in dismissing the indictment prematurely. The court also held that the arbitrary rev
-
The court held that the Texas capital sentencing statute, as applied, did not unconstitutionally prevent the jury from considering mitigating evidence, and that Barnard's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
-
-
The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, affirming the denial of federal habeas relief.
-
The court held that the state courts' refusal to interview a juror, based on a weak showing of potential bias, did not violate due process, and thus federal habeas relief was inappropriate.
-
The court held that the exclusion of victim's family testimony against the death penalty was proper, and that post-hypnotic testimony is not per se unconstitutional. However, the death sentence for one victim must be vacated due to an unconstitutional statutory aggravating circum
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's motion for a certificate of probable cause can serve as a timely notice of appeal, and that the district court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing when state court findings were not impeached.
-
The court held that a state trial court's denial of a continuance, which resulted in the defendant proceeding to trial without counsel, did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a lack of fair opportunity to secure counsel and the denial was
-
The court held that the state courts' rejection of the defendant's claims regarding false testimony and Brady violations was entitled to deference, and that the defendant's other claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred.
-
651 F.2d 605·
8th Cir.·
1981-06-23
·cited 20×
The district court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing or adequate development of the record, particularly given the alleged due process violations and lack of a written decision by the prison disciplinary board.
-
646 F.2d 151·
5th Cir.·
1981-03-26
·cited 20×
The court held that individuals involuntarily confined in state mental institutions may bring a § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of the commitment procedures, and that abstention was not appropriate. However, the court vacated the certification of the defendant cla
-
The district court erred by dismissing habeas corpus petitions without considering factual allegations contradicting state court findings and by failing to determine if state remedies were ineffective.
-
A guilty plea, entered with advice of counsel, breaks the chain of prior constitutional violations, and federal habeas relief is limited to the voluntariness and knowing character of the plea itself.
-
The court held that the waiver principle does not bar federal habeas review when state courts considered the merits, and that discriminatory impact in grand jury selection, without a satisfactory explanation, allows an inference of discriminatory purpose.
-
598 F.2d 425·
5th Cir.·
1979-07-06
·cited 19×
The court held that a factual dispute regarding counsel's bar admission requires remand for further fact-finding, while other claims were properly denied.
-
597 F.2d 986·
5th Cir.·
1979-06-29
·cited 19×
The court affirmed the district court's finding that the petitioner was competent to plead guilty, and that a nunc pro tunc hearing was permissible.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner's claims regarding ex parte jury communication, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit or based on frivolous allegations.
-
902 F.2d 749·
9th Cir.·
1990-05-04
·cited 18×
The admission of irrelevant, highly prejudicial evidence of prior injuries, coupled with an improper jury instruction that allowed the jury to use this evidence to directly determine guilt, violated the defendant's due process rights.
-
-
The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was constitutional, but remanded for further review of the warrantless arrest, waiver of rights, and admission of prior conviction evidence.
-
The court held that the district court properly entertained the habeas petition but must reconsider the substantive claims, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings.
-
The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute cause for a procedural default, and that the petitioner's counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to investigate a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement.
-
The admission of a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant, even if deemed harmless error by state courts, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and requires reversal unless the prosecution proves harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the majority erred in treating the voluntariness of a confession as a question of fact, thereby deferring to state court findings, when Supreme Court precedent establishes it as a mixed question of law and fact requiring independent federal review.
-
The court did not issue a holding in this excerpt, as it is a concurring and dissenting opinion and an order for rehearing en banc.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the repeal of a statute concerning sentence commutation did not violate the ex post facto clause.
-
The majority erred by failing to give sufficient deference to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' findings regarding the jury charge and prosecutor's argument.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the majority's decision to set aside a conviction based on statistical disparities in jury selection, without a claim of innocence, is improper and undermines the justice system.
-
The court held that the state courts' denial of new trial motions, based on newly discovered evidence, did not violate due process because the evidence was found to be cumulative and not credible, and the state courts conducted a full and fair review.
-
562 F.2d 596·
8th Cir.·
1977-10-05
·cited 18×
The court held that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's absence from the courtroom during the interrogation of the jury amounted to harmless error, and that the issue of waiver was not resolved.
-
The court held that while the state court adequately determined the issue of physical coercion, the claim of mental and psychological coercion was never sufficiently developed or passed upon, requiring a federal evidentiary hearing.
-
The dissenting judge holds that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel and right to remain silent, and his statements were not involuntary.
-
-
The court granted the certificate of probable cause to appeal, finding the issue debatable among jurists of reason, but ultimately affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, holding the state court's 'paper hearing' was adequate for § 2254(d) presumption of correctness.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that the petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.
-
The court held that the state's identification procedures did not violate due process, as the trial court's factual determination of reliability was entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
The district court correctly applied the standard for federal habeas corpus review of state court findings.
-
A trial court may permissibly deny a criminal defendant the right to represent himself if a severe speech impediment renders him unable to abide by the rules of courtroom procedure and communicate effectively with the jury.
-
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate potential alibi witnesses constituted deficient performance, and the case must be remanded for a determination of prejudice.
-
The court held that the Illinois appellate court's finding of waiver was an independent and adequate basis for decision, even though it also analyzed the issue for plain error.
-
The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses reservations about applying the contemporaneous objection rule to claims that have been revived by Supreme Court certiorari, suggesting that such claims should be reviewed on their merits.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached but was validly waived. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The dissenting judge would hold that the defendant's statements did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel, and therefore the confession should not be suppressed.
-
The federal court held that while prosecutorial error occurred by using perjured testimony, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming corroborating evidence. The district court's grant of habeas corpus was therefore vacated.