Cause And Prejudice Standard (Wainwright V. Sykes)

111 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Sealey v. Warden GDCP.
  954 F.3d 1338· 11th Cir.· 2020-03-31 ·cited 167×
  Richard Sealey, convicted of murdering two victims with an axe in 2002 and sentenced to death, sought federal habeas relief claiming his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during sentencing by failing to investigate and present mental health evidence, secure his sole m
• Norris v. United States
  687 F.2d 899· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 119×
• Birt v. Montgomery
  725 F.2d 587· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 96×
• Spencer v. Zant
  715 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 82×
• Sullivan v. Louie L. Wainwright
  695 F.2d 1306· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 65×
  The concurring judge believes the majority misapplied Sykes by deciding the cause prong on the merits without a factual determination.
• Francois v. Louie L. Wainwright
  741 F.2d 1275· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed the denial of the federal habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner procedurally defaulted on his claims and failed to demonstrate cause or prejudice for the default.
• Rachel v. Bordenkircher
  590 F.2d 200· 6th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments on the petitioner's post-arrest silence and failure to testify at trial violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, warranting reversal of the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Spencer v. Kemp
  781 F.2d 1458· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 60×
  The petitioner is entitled to federal habeas review of his jury selection claim because he presented the objection seasonably to the trial court.
• Forman v. Smith
  633 F.2d 634· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-08 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the Wainwright v. Sykes 'cause and prejudice' standard applies to constitutional claims omitted from a direct appeal, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or prejudice.
• Wallace v. A.L. Lockhart
  701 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or failed to demonstrate prejudice or a constitutional violation.
• Rinehart v. Lou V. Brewer
  561 F.2d 126· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a 15-year-old defendant's guilty plea was involuntary due to inadequate explanations and immaturity, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and was denied an impartial tribunal.
• Cole v. Stevenson
  620 F.2d 1055· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-05 ·cited 50×
  A state prisoner is barred from federal habeas corpus relief if he failed to comply with valid state procedural requirements that independently preclude direct review of the merits.
• Dorman v. Louie L. Wainwright
  798 F.2d 1358· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the state denied petitioner his constitutional right to self-representation and that the district court properly granted habeas corpus relief.
• Williams v. Lane
  826 F.2d 654· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's determination of procedural default was not based on an independent and adequate state procedural ground, thus allowing federal habeas review.
• Gilmore v. Armontrout
  861 F.2d 1061· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the prosecutor's closing argument and victim-impact evidence were procedurally barred and lacked merit, and that the absence of counsel at arraignment did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. The court reversed the district
• Johnson v. United States
  838 F.2d 201· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a defendant cannot establish 'cause' for failing to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel when the claim is merely a disagreement with counsel's tactical decisions, as prohibited by Strickland.
• Sullivan v. Fairman
  819 F.2d 1382· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-22 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
• Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. OF Corr.
  800 F.2d 905· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a petitioner's failure to appeal a post-conviction relief denial to the state's highest court constitutes a procedural default requiring a showing of cause and prejudice to obtain federal habeas relief.
• Lenson A. Hargrave v. Dugger
  832 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 35×
  The court held that federal courts should proceed to the merits of a Lockett claim if Florida courts have indicated they will not apply procedural default rules to such claims.
• Stevie Cole v. Young
  817 F.2d 412· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-28 ·cited 34×
  A federal court cannot hold that a state court misunderstood state law, as state courts' interpretations define state law for federal purposes. A failure to follow state law does not automatically violate the Constitution.
• Daugherty v. Dugger
  839 F.2d 1426· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness regarding a jury instruction and the failure to present psychiatric testimony, and that his claim regarding prosecutorial discretion was procedurally barred.
• Lincoln Isaac v. Engle
  646 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 32×
• Goode v. Louie L. Wainwright
  704 F.2d 593· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court adequately addressed the appellant's competence to stand trial and to waive counsel, and that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. However, the court found merit in the claim that the trial court improperly rel
• United States v. Prince
  868 F.2d 1379· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 29×
• United States v. Marcello
  876 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-23 ·cited 28×
  Convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) must be vacated if the underlying predicate offenses, such as mail or wire fraud, were based on the "intangible rights doctrine" rejected by the Supreme Court in McNally v. United States, and if the i
• Haber v. Louie L. Wainwright
  756 F.2d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regarding prior burglaries was likely harmless error, a remand is necessary to determine if the state failed to disclose an understanding or agreement with a key witness regarding prior crimes, which cou
• United States ex rel. Johnny Veal v. DeROBERTIS
  693 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a hearing should not be held to determine if the petitioner can show cause and prejudice for failing to make an adequate offer of proof.
• Taylor v. Harris
  640 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus claim is barred by procedural default if the petitioner failed to object to a jury instruction at trial and on appeal, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Thomas v. Blackburn
  623 F.2d 383· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Ballew v. Georgia, which declared five-member juries unconstitutional, should be applied retroactively to invalidate convictions obtained by such juries.
• Worthen v. Meachum
  842 F.2d 1179· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 26×
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by an attorney's inaccurate prediction of parole eligibility or by an attorney's promise of unrelated legal representation, especially when the defendant affirms the plea's voluntariness in court.
• United States ex rel. Robert Hudson v. Brierton
  699 F.2d 917· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 26×
  Noncompliance with a state contemporaneous-objection rule bars federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice; the identification was reliable despite suggestive procedures.
• Meeks v. Bergen
  749 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment due to counsel's failure to investigate and present available witnesses and evidence, including the battered spouse syndrome defense.
• United States ex rel. Donald C. Villa v. J.W. Fairman and Neil F. Hartigan
  810 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 22×
  The court should remand to the district court for a determination of waiver and cause and prejudice.
• Young v. Herring
  777 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 22×
  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.
• United States ex rel. Melvin H. Sullivan v. Fairman
  731 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner forfeited his due process claims by failing to fairly present them to the state courts, but reversed and remanded the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for further proceedings.
• Farmer v. Prast
  721 F.2d 602· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief is barred by a state contemporaneous objection rule if they fail to show both cause for noncompliance and actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional error.
• Henry v. Louie L. Wainwright
  743 F.2d 761· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-19 ·cited 21×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Mitchell v. Scully
  746 F.2d 951· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding an affirmative defense lacked merit because there was no reasonable probability that the defense would have succeeded or resulted in a more favorable outcome.
• Young v. Herring
  938 F.2d 543· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 18×
  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.
• Buelow v. Dickey
  847 F.2d 420· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 18×
• Straight v. Louie L. Wainwright
  772 F.2d 674· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or without merit, and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Garrison v. McCARTHY
  653 F.2d 374· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to object to identification procedures at trial, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, bars federal habeas review of the claim, and that such failure, when a tactical decision by counsel, does not constitute ineffective assistance of c
• Young v. Herring
  917 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 16×
  The dissent argues that the majority misapplies the 'plain statement' rule from Harris v. Reed, improperly expanding federal habeas review by disregarding an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
• Gross v. Greer
  773 F.2d 116· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of constitutional error were either procedurally barred, harmless, or properly handled by the state courts, and thus denied the petition for habeas corpus relief.
• Thompson v. White
  661 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the sheriff's personal selection of the entire jury panel, especially in a case where the victim was a law enforcement officer, created a sufficient risk of prejudice to violate due process.
• Velarde v. Shulsen
  757 F.2d 1093· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that prosecutorial cross-examination and argument regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence, when not used for impeachment of prior inconsistent statements, violates due process and is not harmless error in a case hinging on the defendant's credibility.
• Shaddy v. Clarke
  890 F.2d 1016· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus claim is procedurally barred due to his failure to file a timely appeal in state court, and he has not exhausted state remedies to establish cause for this default.
• Walker v. Endell
  850 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that placing the burden on the defendant to prove duress is constitutional, state appellate review for plain error bypasses procedural default, and a sentencing judge may consider facts related to a contemporaneous acquittal.
• United States ex rel. Jerry Devine v. Richard DeROBERTIS & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ill.
  754 F.2d 764· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-12 ·cited 14×
  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.
• Bowden v. Francis
  733 F.2d 740· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to order a psychiatric examination for competency, nor did it err in other claims raised by the petitioner.