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 Ford standard is the appropriate measure for competency to be executed and that the district court correctly applied it, affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that the petitioner was competent to
-
923 F.2d 10·
2d Cir.·
1990-12-28
·cited 6×
The court held that the timing of a witness's arrest, even if potentially impacting exculpatory testimony, does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense unless bad faith by the prosecution is shown and the absence of the testimony fundamentally undermi
-
The court held that Derrick's confession was voluntary under the Fourteenth Amendment and his Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
905 F.2d 211·
8th Cir.·
1990-06-05
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the claims were either procedurally barred or did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
-
The court held that the 1974 convictions, obtained without a required juvenile certification hearing, were constitutionally infirm and should not have been considered in sentencing for the 1979 conviction.
-
The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
869 F.2d 1111·
8th Cir.·
1989-03-13
·cited 6×
The court held that the petitioner's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel did not rise to the level of constitutional violations, and therefore, habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the habitual criminal finding, right to counsel, and Eighth Amendment challenge to his life sentence lacked merit.
-
The court held that the state court's finding that juror Creamer was properly excused for cause was fairly supported by the record, and the district court erred in vacating the death sentence.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to show substantial evidence that could not be expressed in the jury's deliberateness inquiry, and thus a stay of execution was not warranted.
-
The court held that Shedelbower's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, as he voluntarily initiated further communication after invoking his right to counsel.
-
The court held that while the state court's implicit finding of a voluntary Miranda waiver is entitled to deference, a remand is necessary for an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of the confession itself due to insufficient record evidence.
-
854 F.2d 309·
8th Cir.·
1988-08-17
·cited 6×
The court held that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred or without merit, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that Calloway's confession was unconstitutionally admitted, but Cooper's confession was not. However, Cooper's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Calloway's confession against him.
-
841 F.2d 844·
8th Cir.·
1988-03-09
·cited 6×
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the burglary conviction, violating due process, and that the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing.
-
The court held that the state courts' findings that the petitioner contemplated the use of lethal force and voluntarily participated in the robbery and murders were supported by the record and satisfied the Enmund standard, thus allowing the imposition of the death penalty.
-
806 F.2d 613·
5th Cir.·
1986-12-24
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the appellant's second habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(b) because it failed to allege new grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits, and that relief on the second ground was also properly denied.
-
A juvenile's confession is admissible if voluntarily made under the totality of the circumstances, even without parental presence, provided the juvenile knowingly and intelligently waived their rights.
-
The court held that the Florida statute for determining the sanity of a death row inmate meets minimum due process standards, and precedent binds the panel to affirm the denial of the petition.
-
-
The court held that a guilty plea is not rendered involuntary merely because it was entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty, and the judge's explanation of potential consequences does not constitute coercion if it is a fair description of alternatives.
-
The court held that the state court's findings of fact were presumed correct and supported by the record, and that the petitioner's claims regarding witness testimony reliability and ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
-
The trial court's denial of the defendant's request for substitute counsel, made due to an irreconcilable conflict and ineffective representation, deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the undisclosed exculpatory evidence, even if considered, would not have affected the outcome of the trial, and thus affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the petitioner's thirty-two month delay between charge and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
-
The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
688 F.2d 682·
9th Cir.·
1982-09-23
·cited 6×
The court held that prosecuting an individual under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3970 for committing a felony while released on recognizance, after conviction for the underlying felony, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because the conviction subsumes the elements of the
-
672 F.2d 683·
8th Cir.·
1982-03-16
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief, holding that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Fourth Amendment violations were properly rejected.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no demonstrated prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to investigate a rumor.
-
-
649 F.2d 783·
10th Cir.·
1981-05-21
·cited 6×
The court held that the Utah obscenity statute was constitutional and that the trial court did not err in its procedures regarding preliminary hearings, jury challenges, or closing arguments.
-
590 F.2d 153·
5th Cir.·
1979-02-23
·cited 6×
The court held that the petitioner's claims do not establish cause for procedural default or present constitutional issues warranting habeas relief.
-
The court would reverse the district court's finding because the state court's fact-finding, on the same record, is entitled to a presumption of correctness and there is no substantial evidence to support the district court's contrary finding.
-
A guilty plea entered under Wisconsin statute § 971.31(10) must be vacated if the trial court failed to suppress inadmissible evidence, even if some other evidence remains admissible.
-
The court held that the District Judge's reliance on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) was misplaced because the state trial judge made no factual finding on the voluntariness of the confession.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without providing transcripts, as the petitioner had prior access and failed to demonstrate a need or new supporting evidence.
-
The federal court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing when contested issues of fact controlled the constitutional questions raised.
-
The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the confession obtained in Mexico, as the state court's determination of voluntariness was presumed correct and the Miranda warnings, though imperfect, were a good faith effort under the circumstances
-
The court held that the appellant's state rape conviction was not unconstitutional, as his arrest was based on probable cause, his confession was voluntary, and the state court had jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the federal courts must defer to state court factual findings when supported by the record, and that the petitioner received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.
-
A statement obtained in violation of Escobedo may be used to impeach a defendant's trial testimony, even if inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
-
The court held that the inmate's confinement in prison, despite sexual assaults, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner's allegations regarding misleading advice about his guilty plea were not conclusively refuted by the record.
-
The court held that a state appellate court's decision alone is insufficient to deny a federal habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority erred by not granting a hearing to assess the credibility of the petitioner's assertion of non-knowing waiver of counsel.
-
The court held that the jury charge regarding the inference of guilt from possession of recently stolen property, while not a model, was cured by other instructions and did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court also found the
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel without reviewing the state court record, and that the denial of a transcript and counsel for a post-judgment relief appeal was not a constitutional violation as the pr
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas application based on prior proceedings because those proceedings lacked an evidentiary hearing on the merits. The court also noted a substantial new issue regarding denial of counsel that could warrant relief.
-
The court held that the appellant's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, and the detention as a material witness was lawful.
-
The court held that the federal habeas court did not err in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing because the state proceedings provided a full and fair hearing on the factual issues.