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 defendant failed to demonstrate constitutional errors in the photographic identification procedure, juror nondisclosure, or prosecutor's cross-examination that would warrant overturning his conviction.
-
A petitioner seeking federal habeas corpus relief cannot raise a claim that was procedurally defaulted in state court unless they demonstrate cause and prejudice, and the claim's basis must appear in the trial record to establish cause.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were without merit and that the state court's factfinding procedures were adequate.
-
The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, despite the interrogating officers not asking specific questions about his desire for counsel to be present.
-
691 F.2d 796·
5th Cir.·
1982-11-18
·cited 16×
The court held that the petitioner's claims did not raise disputed issues of material fact and affirmed the district court's dismissal, treating it as a grant of summary judgment.
-
The court held that the circumstances of the identification were sufficiently suggestive to warrant careful consideration of reliability under established legal criteria.
-
The majority opinion orders a remand for a new evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of statements made by petitioners after arrest, finding the state court's factual determination on voluntariness was not entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. §
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing, as the fragmented record required further fact-finding on the speedy trial claim. The 11.5-month delay for a simple robbery was presumptively prejudicial.
-
The court held that a jury instruction creating a presumption of intent, while potentially erroneous for murder, was harmless error for a voluntary manslaughter conviction because intent is not a required element. The court also held that the trial court's ruling did not improper
-
-
A custodial statement made after complete Miranda warnings is not rendered involuntary solely because it was preceded by an unwarned or inadequately warned statement.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court record adequately demonstrated the voluntariness of the appellant's statements.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition without a hearing, as the state court's findings did not clearly establish whether the petitioner was informed of his right to appointed appellate counsel or the 30-day time limit for appeal.
-
A federal court may not presume the correctness of state court factual findings unless they are written findings from the trial court, not merely statements in an appellate opinion.
-
The court held that the appellant had not deliberately bypassed state remedies and that the district court should determine the merits of his claims regarding the right to counsel and the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse and remand, arguing the search was unconstitutional.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims of speedy trial denial, ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural irregularities, and a coercive jury instruction did not rise to the level of constitutional violations warranting federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that a federal court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing if the state trial court provided a full and fair hearing and the record supports the federal court's findings.
-
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance. This conflict arose from the attorney's representation of both
-
The court held that the state court's denial of the writ should be affirmed, finding that the defendant initiated contact with officers and was not coerced into waiving his right to counsel.
-
The court held that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Lesko's claim that his guilty plea was used in violation of due process, and that prosecutorial comments tainted the jury's sentencing determination.
-
868 F.2d 1364·
4th Cir.·
1989-03-03
·cited 15×
The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) provides the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims, precluding a separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the claim is framed as a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the trial court's admission of identification testimony, the prosecution's disclosure practices, or the supplemental jury charge.
-
The court denies the writ of habeas corpus for claims I, III, and IV, finding them procedurally barred or without merit, but orders an evidentiary hearing for claim II regarding competency to be executed.
-
796 F.2d 1103·
9th Cir.·
1986-08-11
·cited 15×
A defendant does not have a constitutional right to be present at a competency hearing, as it is a preliminary proceeding and not a critical stage of trial.
-
The court affirmed the denial of Mr. Howell's federal habeas petition. The concurring opinion found that Mr. Howell's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on the failure to present an intervening cause defense, the trial court's sentencing procedure, and alleged con
-
The court held that the defendant's statement was a request for clarification, not an invocation of his right to counsel, and that even if it were, his subsequent statements reinitiated interrogation and constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights.
-
The court held that a sentence of life without parole imposed under a statute that reserved such a penalty only for those who went to trial is unconstitutional under United States v. Jackson. The court also held that the appellant's confession was admissible.
-
846 F.2d 1355·
11th Cir.·
1988-06-14
·cited 14×
A violation of Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) does not support post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless the petitioner alleges facts casting substantial doubt on the trial's reliability regarding guilt.
-
The court held that an unconstitutional jury instruction shifting the burden of proof on intent was not harmless error given evidence of a dissociative attack, but that the introduction of a state psychiatrist's testimony did not violate the defendant's right to counsel. The cour
-
The court held that the district court correctly determined that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no error in the trial court's rulings on change of venue, juror impartiality, or discovery violations.
-
The dissenting judge believes the record contains sufficient evidence for conviction and penalty, and that a remand is unnecessary.
-
800 F.2d 1526·
9th Cir.·
1986-09-30
·cited 14×
The court held that both the Sandstrom jury instruction error and the Bruton error were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that the pretrial identification was not impermissibly suggestive and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time of the identification, and even if it had, the identification constituted harmless error.
-
The court held that the state failed to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights by the petitioner.
-
The court held that the trial court's thorough investigation and finding of no jury bias, supported by juror statements, meant the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
-
A federal court reviewing a state conviction via habeas corpus must afford a high measure of deference to state court factual findings, and a guilty plea is valid if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, even if the defendant does not fully grasp every nuance of the law.
-
The court held that Miranda warnings do not apply to situations where a suspect voluntarily writes a confession without police interrogation, even if family members encouraged the confession.
-
The court held that the identity of trial and appellate counsel from the same firm constitutes sufficient 'cause' to overlook a procedural default regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-
The court held that the government informant did not elicit inculpatory statements from the appellant, and the lower courts' findings to this effect were supported by the record.
-
The court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the prosecution did not violate due process by failing to disclose post-testimony efforts to secure leniency for a witness, as these actions did not affect the witness's credibility at the time of testimony.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as factual questions regarding potential Sixth Amendment violations due to conflicts of interest in joint representation require further development.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of competency was based on inadequate evaluations, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief, affirming the denial of the petitioner's claims regarding identification testimony, juror prejudice, reciprocal discovery, and double jeopardy.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas relief without independently examining the entire state court record to determine the materiality of the undisclosed witness agreement.
-
The court held that a suspect's waiver of the right to remain silent, after consulting with an attorney, can constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to have counsel present during interrogation.
-
The dissenting judge would remand the case to allow the state court to clarify its factual findings regarding the voluntariness of the confessions before the federal district court holds a new evidentiary hearing.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner's claims were either previously adjudicated by state courts, not sufficiently prejudicial, or not properly exhausted.