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 remands the case to the trial judge for further factual exploration regarding the voluntariness of a confession.
-
The court held that the search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest, the admission of statements was permissible under the orthodox rule for confessions, and the alleged alteration of the warrant did not constitute suppression of exculpatory evidence or denial of cross-ex
-
851 F.2d 72·
2d Cir.·
1988-06-30
·cited 13×
The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of great and immediate irreparable harm or prosecutorial bad faith.
-
832 F.2d 1446·
7th Cir.·
1987-11-04
·cited 13×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus vacating the death sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase, but affirmed the denial of relief regarding the conviction.
-
500 F.2d 1188·
3d Cir.·
1974-07-08
·cited 13×
The dissenting judge argues that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, harassment, or truly extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here.
-
A successive habeas petition constitutes an abuse of the writ and the court need not reach the merits of the claims if the petitioner cannot show cause for failing to raise the claims earlier or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
-
The court held that defense counsel's failure to ensure an alibi witness's appearance at trial, despite diligent efforts to locate her, did not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the victim's in-court identification was reliable, evidence of other crimes was properly admitted, the speedy trial claim was procedurally barred, and counsel was not ineffective.
-
904 F.2d 473·
9th Cir.·
1990-02-21
·cited 12×
A state court's summary denial of a habeas petition without clearly stating reliance on a procedural default does not bar federal habeas review of the federal claims. However, a defendant's trial counsel's failure to object to testimony on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds, when
-
The court held that the appellant's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, as he initiated further discussion after invoking his right to counsel and validly waived those rights under the totality of the circumstances.
-
The district court properly applied the presumption of correctness to state appellate court findings and correctly concluded that the petitioner's statements were voluntary and not the product of illegal interrogation.
-
The court affirmed the denial of a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial issue on the merits regarding jury disqualifications.
-
The court held that the state court's finding that the petitioner initiated further communication after invoking his right to counsel is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and thus the subsequent waiver and statement were valid.
-
The court held that the petitioner's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate his prior mental history, which prejudiced his defense. The court also affirmed the denial of habeas relief on the Brady and competency issues.
-
A state court's finding that a waiver of Miranda rights preceded a confession is a historical fact entitled to a presumption of correctness in federal habeas review if supported by the record. A confession is admissible even if an attorney attempted to contact the suspect during
-
The court held that the majority erred in not remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine if counsel was ineffective for failing to seek disqualification of the prosecutor, given the prosecutor's prior representation of the defendant.
-
The court held that the district court correctly found an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, and that the petitioner did not effectively waive this conflict due to collusion among the prosecutor, defense attorney, and police officer.
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying the wrong legal standard to petitioners' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of access to grand jury testimony, and exclusion of mitigating sentencing evidence.
-
The court held that the admission of certain hearsay statements was a Confrontation Clause violation but harmless error, and that Arizona's death penalty statute is constitutional as applied.
-
The court held that a knowing and voluntary guilty plea generally precludes a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, but remanded because the record lacked a clear finding on the plea's voluntariness.
-
752 F.2d 111·
5th Cir.·
1984-12-26
·cited 12×
The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of incompetency, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of extraneous offenses, or unconstitutional jury exclusion.
-
The court held that a trial judge's initial doubt about a defendant's competency to stand trial can be dissipated by subsequent evidence and reports, and the judge is not automatically required to hold a hearing if that doubt is reasonably resolved.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and right to counsel at lineup, but affirmed the denial of the claim regarding an impermissibly suggestive lineup.
-
The court, in a concurring opinion, argues that the established constitutional standard for jury impartiality, allowing jurors with preconceived notions of guilt if they promise to be impartial, is flawed and should be replaced with a stricter standard.
-
The court held that the indictment was constitutionally sufficient but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the attorney's motion to withdraw due to a conflict of interest was dilatory.
-
Difficulty in reprosecution due to delay in filing a habeas petition is not sufficient prejudice to warrant dismissal under Rule 9(a).
-
The court held that while the state trial court's jury instructions on scienter were insufficient, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the defendant's knowledge of the film's contents, and her defense was not based on
-
678 F.2d 791·
9th Cir.·
1982-06-02
·cited 12×
The dissenting judge would hold that the Massiah doctrine, rooted in the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, does not apply to post-sentencing confrontations between law enforcement and a convicted defendant.
-
A federal district court is not required to examine the full trial record in a habeas corpus petition alleging insufficiency of evidence if the petitioner fails to identify any inaccuracies or incompleteness in the factual summaries already before the court.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's grant of habeas corpus, arguing that federal courts are bound by state court factual findings and that the jury's verdict was rational.
-
The court held that the pretrial and in-court identification procedures, as well as the prosecutor's conduct, did not violate due process, and the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
-
The federal district court's finding that a state prisoner's guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made is not clearly erroneous and is therefore affirmed.
-
The court held that a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel when the record does not support the state's factual assertions.
-
The court held that any error in denying a pretrial competency hearing was cured by a subsequent evidentiary hearing, and that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
538 F.2d 1037·
4th Cir.·
1976-03-23
·cited 12×
The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies by failing to properly present his federal claim to the state courts, and therefore the federal court should have dismissed the petition.
-
A defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel at a post-indictment, pre-trial photographic identification session, and the procedure used was not impermissibly suggestive.
-
The court held that the District Court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing when disputed issues of fact were presented.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as the state court provided a full and fair hearing on the voluntariness of the guilty plea.
-
Federal courts are not required to hold a second evidentiary hearing in habeas corpus cases if a full and fair hearing was held at the state level.
-
The court held that the right to challenge a search warrant under Aguilar v. Texas was not knowingly waived in this case.
-
The court held that a petitioner cannot raise new claims for the first time on appeal and that the absence of counsel at a preliminary hearing does not require relief absent specific prejudice.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition without a full evidentiary hearing, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and applicable law.
-
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court proceedings were insufficient to establish the voluntariness of the guilty plea.
-
The court held that the voluntariness of a statement for federal habeas review is a matter for independent federal determination, not subject to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the Stone v. Powell doctrine does not bar Fifth and Sixth Amendment
-
The court held that a defendant's expressed unwillingness to raise a defense does not absolve counsel of the responsibility to investigate and present that defense, especially when the defense is the only plausible one.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's systematic use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, coupled with appeals to racial prejudice in closing arguments, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial and entitled him to a new trial.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and unconstitutionality of the death penalty stat
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the murder occurred in Idaho, and that the admission of evidence relating to another murder for which the defendant was acquitted did not violate due process or double jeopardy. The
-
The court held that the trial court's determination of competency to stand trial, when supported by the record and applying the correct legal standard, is entitled to deference and should not be overturned on appeal.