Cause And Prejudice Standard (Wainwright V. Sykes)

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

• Melchior v. Jago
  723 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-15 ·cited 14×
  The State of Ohio can constitutionally place the burden of proving self-defense upon the defendant in a felony murder prosecution.
• Gibson v. Butterworth
  693 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the state court's review for a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice, even if it examined jury instructions on the merits, did not preclude the application of federal habeas corpus procedural default rules when the federal constitutional claim was not add
• Rodriguez v. Young
  906 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that while counsel's failure to move for suppression of identification testimony was objectively unreasonable, the identification was sufficiently reliable to be admissible, and there was no miscarriage of justi
• Walker v. J.O. Davis
  840 F.2d 834· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prosecutor's conduct in acting as both witness and advocate, combined with the lack of overwhelming evidence, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, thus meeting the standard for federal habeas review despite the procedural default.
• Doucette v. Vose
  842 F.2d 538· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The SJC's review of a claimed instructional error under state law, even if referencing federal constitutional issues, does not waive a procedural default for federal habeas review.
• McKINNEY v. Estelle
  657 F.2d 740· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper argument, in the context of prior improprieties and the lack of a ruling on the objection, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Buckley v. A.L. Lockhart
  892 F.2d 715· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner's claims are procedurally barred if not fairly presented to the state courts, and that escape from custody forfeits the right to appeal, thus precluding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to appeal.
• Tasco v. Butler
  835 F.2d 1120· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 8×
  The court agrees to reach the merits of the case, despite potential procedural default issues regarding Louisiana's contemporaneous objection rule.
• United States ex rel. Edward Weismiller v. Lane
  815 F.2d 1106· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that challenges to jury instructions were procedurally barred due to a state procedural default, and direct challenges to the Illinois Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) statutes were without merit.
• Brasier v. Douglas
  815 F.2d 64· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that procedural default did not preclude federal habeas review because the state court had addressed the merits of the petitioner's claims.
• Cyril Edwards v. E.W. Jones
  720 F.2d 751· 2d Cir.· 1983-11-01 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that any constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the concurring judge's disagreement with the application of the forfeiture rule.
• Mahan Hollin v. Sowders
  710 F.2d 264· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the attorney's negligence did not cause demonstrable harm because the defendant's claims were considered on valid state grounds, thus no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.
• Solles v. Israel
  868 F.2d 242· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct, while egregious, did not rise to the level of constitutional error requiring habeas relief, and that defense counsel's performance was effective.
• Morris v. Kemp
  809 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it in his first state habeas proceeding and affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief.
• Buxton v. Collins
  925 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and that he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default. The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Ferguson v. Jones
  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.
• Fairchild v. A.L. Lockhart
  900 F.2d 1292· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A successive habeas petition is procedurally barred and an abuse of the writ if new claims were available earlier and no cause or prejudice is shown. Even on the merits, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that alleged mental retardation rendered his confessions unreliable or th
• Rice v. Marshall
  816 F.2d 1126· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-24 ·cited 6×
• Rodriguez v. Scully
  788 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, but held that the district court should not have reached the merits due to procedural default.
• Stepney v. Lopes
  760 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner who procedurally defaulted a constitutional claim in state court must demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default to obtain federal review, even if the state appellate court did not explicitly rule on the default.
• Hammer v. Meachum
  691 F.2d 958· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-27 ·cited 6×
  A state prisoner's knowing and informed bypass of state procedures, including failure to appeal, precludes federal habeas corpus relief.
• Bell v. Perini
  635 F.2d 575· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 6×
• White v. Sowders
  644 F.2d 1177· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Circuit held that a juvenile's constitutional rights were violated by an inadequate transfer order from juvenile to adult court, and federal habeas corpus relief was available despite procedural arguments by the state.
• Bufford McDonald v. Estelle
  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.
• Gale v. Harris
  580 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's limitation on cross-examining a witness about a prior confession did not deny the petitioner a fundamentally fair trial, distinguishing it from a prior case involving a co-defendant.
• Tucker v. Makowski
  883 F.2d 877· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the Blockburger test might be satisfied, successive prosecutions arising from the same transaction require a "fundamental fairness" analysis under due process, and remanded for review of state court records to determine this.
• Mychelle Davis v. Marsh
  876 F.2d 1446· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The failure to raise federal constitutional claims in the military court system bars a litigant from raising them in federal court, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, mirroring the rule for state convictions.
• Wickstrom v. Schardt
  798 F.2d 268· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition because at least one claim was unexhausted and the petitioner was no longer in custody.
• Breest v. Cunningham
  784 F.2d 435· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to meet the 'cause' and 'prejudice' requirements for federal habeas corpus relief, affirming the denial of the writ.
• Benson v. Armontrout
  767 F.2d 454· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction, as an appeal had already been decided.
• Brownstein v. Dir., Ill. Dep't OF Corr.
  760 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 4×
  A federal court may deny habeas relief based on a petitioner's "deliberate bypass" of state procedures, even if no procedural default occurred under state law, when the petitioner strategically sought an unentitled benefit.
• United States ex rel. Ronald C. Huckstead v. Greer
  737 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that the omission of a jury instruction regarding the state's burden to disprove self-defense did not rise to the level of plain error or prejudice sufficient for federal habeas relief.
• Alcorn v. Smith
  724 F.2d 37· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies because he failed to properly present his claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel to excuse procedural default, to the state courts.
• Simpson v. Camper
  927 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal would be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Missouri Court of Appeals on whether a state remedy is available to the petitioner.
• Gutierrez v. Moriarty
  922 F.2d 1464· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The majority's conclusion that the New Mexico procedural bar rule is not adequate for speedy trial claims is incorrect because it misinterprets state case law and presumes state courts are not faithful to their rules.
• Earnest Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  882 F.2d 331· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that grounds for relief were either procedurally barred due to failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or without merit.
• Worthan v. Wyrick
  805 F.2d 303· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for his procedural default in failing to raise the bystander juror issue at trial or on direct appeal.
• Bond v. Procunier
  780 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations of suppressed exculpatory evidence were specific enough to warrant a hearing and potentially alter the trial outcome.
• Runnels v. Hess
  713 F.2d 596· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court should find cause for the procedural default and grant relief, as the circumstances demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Hardy v. Callahan
  634 F.2d 646· 1st Cir.· 1980-11-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for his procedural default in state court, thus precluding federal habeas corpus review.
• McKEE v. Crispus C. NIX
  995 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-14
  The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner procedurally defaulted on most claims and the remaining claims lacked merit or were based on state law errors.
• Poyner v. State OF Iowa
  990 F.2d 435· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-08
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding most claims procedurally defaulted and the remaining claims without merit.
• Hudson v. Whitley
  979 F.2d 1058· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-10
  The dissenting judge argues that the case should not be remanded because the evidence of prejudice is overwhelming and the merits of the claim are clear, making the conviction fatally flawed.
• Rollan Stanley v. Jones
  973 F.2d 680· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-28
  The court held that the appellant's claims were procedurally barred and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
• Kennedy v. Duane Shillinger & the Attorney Gen. for the State of Wyo.
  971 F.2d 558· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-28
  The court held that the district court erred in ordering the respondents to pay the petitioner's costs and fees in the habeas corpus proceeding, as there was no statutory authority or justification for such an order.
• Bienbenito Fernandez v. Leonardo
  931 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for his procedural default in failing to object to the admission of his co-defendant's statement at trial, and therefore, habeas relief was improperly granted.
• Wright v. Crispus C. NIX
  928 F.2d 270· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-18
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel, as he did not show that the outcome of his trial would have been different with the excluded juror.
• ROY v. Coxon
  907 F.2d 385· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-29
  The court held that the district court should have reached the merits of the habeas petition because the state court's plain error analysis was not independent of federal law, and the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• McGANN v. The State OF NEW York
  870 F.2d 908· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-23
  The court held that the habeas corpus petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the appellant had initiated a state court appeal after filing the federal petition.
• Cohoon v. Rees
  820 F.2d 784· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-05
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding the statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied and the jury instruction issue not properly preserved.