235 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,235 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
611 F.2d 754·
9th Cir.·
1979-12-21
·cited 32×
The court held that the pre-trial photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating due process.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument regarding the petitioner's post-arrest silence, after being advised by counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and was constitutional error.
-
The court held that a procedural waiver of a challenge to grand jury composition under state law, absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice, bars federal habeas corpus relief, even if the law at the time of trial was unfavorable to the claim.
-
489 F.2d 642·
8th Cir.·
1973-12-27
·cited 32×
A district court rule permitting a magistrate to hold preliminary evidentiary hearings in habeas corpus cases is valid, provided the district judge retains ultimate decision-making power and a de novo review is available.
-
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of habeas relief, finding no constitutional violation regarding pre-trial publicity, admission of evidence, or grand jury composition.
-
The court held that the record affirmatively showed the guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, satisfying due process requirements.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the witness's identification was based on direct observation and not tainted by suggestive lineups, and that the appellant was not entitled to a free transcript for a pro se appeal.
-
408 F.2d 896·
2d Cir.·
1969-03-14
·cited 32×
The denial of an indigent defendant's request for a transcript of prior trial testimony, which was necessary to impeach a key witness, violated the defendant's constitutional right to equal protection.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to show prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have allowed mitigation evidence to be presented, even if it had been discovered.
-
The court held that the doctrine of Wainwright v. Sykes and Murray v. Carrier does not bar review of the petitioner's claim that the trial court unconstitutionally excluded mitigating evidence.
-
A guilty plea is valid if entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, even if the state trial judge fails to explain all elements or lesser included offenses, provided the defendant understood the charge and consequences.
-
The Court held that while the conviction for capital felony murder stands, the death sentence must be set aside due to an unconstitutional aggravating circumstance and ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase.
-
The court held that a lawyer's decision not to appeal is not automatically ineffective assistance of counsel, especially when an appeal would be futile or incur significant costs.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred under Wainwright v. Sykes, and that his statements were not obtained in violation of Miranda rights because he was not in custody.
-
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
-
The court held that the § 1983 claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state child custody disputes.
-
A deliberate tactical decision by competent counsel not to object to the admission of evidence at trial can waive the client's right to claim constitutional error, even if the decision was an oversight by counsel.
-
The court held that a state tort claim, even if arising from the same facts as a federal civil rights claim, is governed by state law and requires proper pleading for federal jurisdiction. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or jury i
-
462 F.2d 992·
1st Cir.·
1972-05-24
·cited 30×
The court held that the district court erred in disregarding the state court's findings of fact regarding consent to search, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and no statutory exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were met.
-
The court held that parole revocation hearings do not require the full due process rights afforded in criminal trials, such as confrontation, cross-examination, or compulsory process, but equal protection may be violated by discretionary practices regarding witnesses.
-
The dissenting opinion argues that the state of Georgia should not be allowed to execute Warren Lee Hill, a mentally retarded individual, despite procedural bars under AEDPA. The dissent emphasizes that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the execution of mentally retard
-
The court held that neither defendant demonstrated an actual conflict of interest arising from joint representation, and therefore, neither is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the denial of counsel to an indigent defendant, even if the conviction predates Gideon v. Wainwright, violates due process and requires invalidation of the conviction.
-
Dolan Darling, a death-row inmate, challenged Florida's lethal injection protocol, the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting disclosure of executioners' identities, and whether Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) attorneys could represent him in federal section 1983 cl
-
The court held that a suspect's confession was admissible despite invoking the right to silence earlier, as fresh Miranda warnings were given, and that the Oregon aggravated murder statute does not violate due process or equal protection.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective, and that the indictment was sufficient and the confession claim was unsupported.
-
The court held that the district court clearly erred in finding the plea bargain did not include a promise of parole eligibility, reversing the denial of habeas corpus relief.
-
A state prisoner's claim of illegal sentencing under a new penal code, absent prejudice, does not raise a federal constitutional issue cognizable in habeas corpus.
-
A federal judge must recuse himself from a federal habeas corpus case if he previously participated in the state supreme court's adjudication of the same claims, as this objectively raises reasonable questions about his impartiality under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).
-
341 F.2d 832·
4th Cir.·
1964-09-29
·cited 28×
An indigent defendant is not entitled to a free transcript for collateral attack on a conviction unless they demonstrate a specific need for it, distinguishing this from direct appeals where counsel's unfamiliarity may establish general need.
-
The court affirmed the disposition of the appeal, but the concurring judge expressed reservations about the strict application of exhaustion rules for federal habeas corpus.
-
76 So. 2d 798·
Fla.·
1954-11-19
·cited 28×
Fourteen petitioners challenged their contempt convictions and jailing for refusing to answer grand jury questions about communist activities, invoking Fifth Amendment protections. The Florida Supreme Court held that the petitioners could lawfully refuse to answer because their a
-
838 So. 2d 1122·
Fla.·
2002-12-19
·cited 27×
Konstantinos Fotopoulos appeals the denial of postconviction relief and petitions for habeas corpus after his conviction for orchestrating two murders and an attempted murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel c
-
The court held that neither 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) nor 18 U.S.C. § 3006A entitles a death-sentenced inmate to federally appointed counsel or a psychiatrist for state-court collateral review proceedings, especially when claims are unexhausted.
-
The court held that the petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of his murder prosecution, requiring automatic reversal of his conviction.
-
The court held that the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the case pending the outcome of the state habeas corpus proceedings.
-
The dissenting judge argues that denying credit for pre-sentence and post-sentence detention to indigent defendants solely because of their inability to make bail constitutes unconstitutional discrimination based on wealth.
-
A guilty plea induced by defense counsel's good-faith, but erroneous, sentence estimate or misstatement of law regarding withdrawal does not render the plea involuntary, absent evidence of government inducement.
-
192 So. 2d 18·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1966-11-15
·cited 27×
Matera appeals a circuit court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging a $250,000 bail as excessive. The appellate court holds that under Florida's Constitution, the bail amount was indeed excessive and amounted to a denial of bail for a non-capital felony, reversing t
-
922 F.2d 1365·
8th Cir.·
1991-01-10
·cited 26×
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and that the jury instructions did not contain plain error.
-
-
The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a jury charge creating a presumption that a defendant intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts, when intent is a disputed element, unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof. This unconstitutionality requires habeas relief even if the defen
-
The Parole Commission did not violate due process by failing to provide advance notice of factors considered or by failing to disclose information used to rate the severity of the offense.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for Fourth Amendment claims when the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim.
-
The court held that a claim regarding prior convictions affecting punishment is not a separate offense and that the judge's determination of prior convictions does not violate the Constitution. Furthermore, failure to perfect an appeal is not a ground for federal habeas corpus wi
-
122 So. 2d 318·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1960-07-19
·cited 26×
In this custody case, the appellate court addressed a trial judge's refusal to comply with the court's mandate awarding custody of a minor child to her biological father. The court held that a trial judge has no discretion to reject or delay implementing an appellate court's mand
-
The Court held that an uncoerced statement following Miranda warnings establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent, and that a suspect must unambiguously invoke this right to cease questioning.
-
789 So. 2d 978·
Fla.·
2001-07-12
·cited 25×
The Florida Supreme Court established a procedural rule for capital appeals, holding that it will not accept pro se filings from represented defendants that contain claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, requests to dismiss counsel, or supplemental bases for relie
-
The court affirmed the denial of the federal habeas petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding the trial judge's comments, improper juror exclusion, ineffective assistance of counsel, or racial discrimination in sentencing.