Federal Habeas Corpus

1,464 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 119 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Dorsey v. Parke
  872 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 22×
  The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not guarantee a defendant the right to cross-examine into a relevant subject already broached solely to expose witness demeanor, nor does it mandate the admission of evidence routinely excluded by evidentiary rules, even if exc
• Joseph D. McMAHON P-7814 v. Fulcomer
  821 F.2d 934· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as mixed, and that the petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.
• High v. Kemp
  819 F.2d 988· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances were adequate and that the prosecutor's comments about other murders did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. The court also found that Batson v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively to collateral
• Hall v. Louie L. Wainwright
  805 F.2d 945· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's absence from non-critical stages of his trial was harmless error and that he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state court.
• Whitley v. Bair
  802 F.2d 1487· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the appellant's claims were procedurally defaulted and that any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel did not result in prejudice.
• Goins v. Lane
  787 F.2d 248· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the rule of Stone v. Powell does not bar a federal habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to pursue a Fourth Amendment claim. However, the court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the trial counsel's
• 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.
• Holcomb v. A.I. Murphy
  701 F.2d 1307· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that issues not raised on direct appeal are cognizable in federal habeas corpus under the Fay v. Noia standard, and that the petitioner's remaining claims were without merit.
• Fisher v. Louie L. Wainwright
  584 F.2d 691· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner's nolo contendere plea was voluntary and intelligently made, despite his claims of ineffective counsel.
• Johnson v. Wright
  509 F.2d 828· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury charge shifting the burden of proof to the defendant regarding the unlicensed nature of a pistol violated due process. However, the arrest and search were constitutional.
• Bannister v. United States
  446 F.2d 1250· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a voluntary guilty plea, entered with comprehension of then-existing circumstances, is generally invulnerable to collateral attack, even on constitutional grounds.
• Odsen v. Moore
  445 F.2d 806· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an inordinate and inexcusable delay in pursuing state appellate remedies may constitute a denial of due process, allowing federal habeas corpus relief.
• Woodards v. Cardwell
  430 F.2d 978· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that excluding jurors for general objections to the death penalty violates Witherspoon v. Illinois, and that shackling a defendant throughout a trial without sufficient justification constitutes a denial of due process and a fair trial.
• Baines v. Swenson
  384 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1967-10-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant has not exhausted his state remedies because a revised post-conviction rule now provides an adequate avenue for relief.
• Jere Lane Henry v. Tinsley
  344 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1965-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, when he filed his federal habeas corpus petition.
• In re Dailey
  949 F.3d 553· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-30 ·cited 21×
  James Dailey, convicted of murder in 1987 and sentenced to death, sought permission to file a second federal habeas petition raising claims of actual innocence, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel based on newly discovered evidence. The Eleventh Circuit Court
• Bruni v. Lewis
  847 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 21×
  A defendant's statement, "Not without my attorney. Well, ask your questions, and I will answer those I see fit," constitutes an unequivocal selective waiver of the right to counsel, allowing subsequent interrogation on topics the defendant chooses to answer.
• Smith v. Dugger
  840 F.2d 787· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding no violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
• Booker v. Dugger
  825 F.2d 281· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the appellant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court and did not adequately explain the failure to raise the fraud claim in a prior petition, thus affirming the dismissal of his independent action and denial of his habeas corpus
• Thompson v. Procunier
  539 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 21×
  Where a state court denies a habeas corpus petition presenting a federal constitutional question without stating a reason, the federal court will assume the state court passed on the merits and resolved the issue against the petitioner.
• Mastrian v. Kermit Hedman
  326 F.2d 708· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the denial of a certificate of probable cause was proper because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the bail amount set by the state court was arbitrary or discriminatory, thus violating federal constitutional rights.
• Hawkins v. Lynaugh
  844 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, affirming the denial of federal habeas relief.
• Olan Randle Robison v. Maynard
  829 F.2d 1501· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the exclusion of victim's family testimony against the death penalty was proper, and that post-hypnotic testimony is not per se unconstitutional. However, the death sentence for one victim must be vacated due to an unconstitutional statutory aggravating circum
• McLAUGHLIN v. Gabriel
  726 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 20×
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner's failure to object to jury instructions at trial, and subsequent failure to present claims in prior petitions without adequate excuse, bars consideration of those claims.
• Carrier v. Hutto
  724 F.2d 396· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge argues that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and did not demonstrate cause and prejudice for federal habeas review.
• Williams v. Estelle
  681 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 20×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that while the denial of in forma pauperis status and dismissal of a claim based on state procedural rules were proper, other claims regarding an involuntary guilty plea stated a valid basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Guzzardo v. Bengston
  643 F.2d 1300· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights were not violated by hearsay remarks or opening statement summaries, and the pandering statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore, the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of
• Turner v. Fair
  617 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed if the specific legal theory supporting the constitutional claim was not fairly presented to the state courts.
• McCURRY v. Allen
  606 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar a § 1983 action for search and seizure claims when federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable, and that the district court should not have granted summary judgment without considering all claims.
• United States ex rel. Harold D. Maxey & Robert P. Maxey v. Morris
  591 F.2d 386· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-05 ·cited 20×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is precluded when a petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their Fourth Amendment claim in state court, even if the state court's ruling differs from federal precedent or if raising the issue in state court would have been deemed futil
• In re McMILLAN
  579 F.2d 289· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 20×
  A default judgment from state court, grounded in fraud, does not have collateral estoppel effect in bankruptcy proceedings to establish nondischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 35(a)(2) because the issues were not actually litigated.
• Trahan v. Estelle
  544 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-10 ·cited 20×
  A guilty plea, entered with advice of counsel, breaks the chain of prior constitutional violations, and federal habeas relief is limited to the voluntariness and knowing character of the plea itself.
• Newman v. Henderson
  539 F.2d 502· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the waiver principle does not bar federal habeas review when state courts considered the merits, and that discriminatory impact in grand jury selection, without a satisfactory explanation, allows an inference of discriminatory purpose.
• George v. Honorable Tom Blackwell
  537 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-25 ·cited 20×
  Federal courts should not grant habeas corpus relief for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
• Piper v. Estelle
  485 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the state's actions did not demonstrate a sufficient lack of interest to waive jurisdiction over the parolee's sentence, as required by Shields v. Beto.
• Jaroslav Sedivy v. Elliot L. Richardson
  485 F.2d 1115· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred with the result but expressed concern that the jurisdictional amount requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not met, suggesting this issue requires further consideration.
• Alson T. Wahrlich v. State OF Ariz.
  479 F.2d 1137· 9th Cir.· 1973-06-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the state court's refusal to admit psychiatric testimony regarding specific intent did not violate due process or equal protection.
• Torance C. Jackson v. State OF La.
  452 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-14 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of a certificate of probable cause because the petitioner failed to exhaust remedies in California, where his current sentence was being served and parole was affected by the prior conviction.
• United States ex rel. Charles Townsend v. Twomey
  452 F.2d 350· 7th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 20×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on an involuntary confession, as res judicata does not apply to successive petitions and the facts supported a finding of involuntariness.
• Bonaparte v. Smith
  448 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 20×
  The district court erred in finding intentional bypass of state remedies without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. Joseph A. DI Rienzo v. State of N.J.
  423 F.2d 224· 3d Cir.· 1970-03-16 ·cited 20×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus petition, and that the relator's contentions regarding denial of counsel for appeal and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• Guenter H. Schoeller v. Dunbar
  423 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition because the appellant was mentally competent when he entered his guilty plea.
• Sims v. Ward Lane
  411 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1969-05-23 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would have reversed the district court's denial of a new trial, finding that the Indiana courts violated the defendant's due process rights by refusing a psychiatric examination and sanity hearing.
• Le Roy St. Clair Brown, Jr. v. Crouse
  395 F.2d 755· 10th Cir.· 1968-05-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because he had not utilized the available Kansas post-conviction relief procedures.
• United States ex rel. Francisco Castillo v. FAY
  350 F.2d 400· 2d Cir.· 1965-07-28 ·cited 20×
  The admission of testimony describing the fruits of an illegal search violated the accused's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Harley W. Miller v. Gladden
  341 F.2d 972· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-19 ·cited 20×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the petitioner's claims, even if successful, would not entitle him to immediate release from custody.
• Deutscher v. Harol Whitley
  946 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 19×
  The court held that constitutional errors at sentencing, including ineffective assistance of counsel and an unconstitutionally vague aggravating factor, undermined the accuracy of the death sentence, thus warranting a grant of habeas corpus to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of
• Clark v. Dugger
  901 F.2d 908· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim based on Caldwell v. Mississippi is procedurally barred under state law, and thus federal habeas relief is denied.
• Stockton v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  852 F.2d 740· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a diner owner's comment to jurors during sentencing deliberations, suggesting the defendant should be executed, created a presumption of prejudice that the Commonwealth failed to rebut, thus vacating the death sentence.
• Hoover v. State OF Md.
  714 F.2d 301· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 19×
  The dissenting judge holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's bias, as sufficient evidence of bias was presented to the jury.