452 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,220 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the admission of Unsworth's written statement without a prior judicial determination of voluntariness, and the admission of his oral statements made while grossly intoxicated, constituted a denial of due process.
-
Davidson James, a Florida death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Eleventh Circuit held that James's Brady claim regarding withheld evidence failed because he d
-
The petitioner is entitled to federal habeas review of his jury selection claim because he presented the objection seasonably to the trial court.
-
The court held that while the conviction was valid, the death sentence must be vacated because the 'pecuniary gain' aggravating circumstance duplicated an element of the underlying capital felony murder charge (robbery), thus failing to narrow the class of eligible defendants as
-
The court, through a concurring opinion, suggests that while counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence may not meet the Sixth Amendment's Strickland standard for ineffective assistance, it could still violate Eighth Amendment concerns regarding arbitrary capital sentencing
-
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.
-
The majority opinion misunderstands the Confrontation Clause by allowing hearsay statements from unavailable witnesses to be admitted against the defendant.
-
Reliance on an unconstitutionally vague or overbroad statutory aggravating circumstance requires vacating the death sentence, especially when the state courts do not reweigh circumstances on appeal.
-
762 F.2d 1480·
11th Cir.·
1985-05-31
·cited 57×
The majority's conclusion that the prosecutorial argument did not affect the reliability and fairness of the sentencing proceeding is disagreed with.
-
The court held that even if a prosecutor's argument was inflammatory, it does not automatically constitute a denial of due process required for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
-
The majority incorrectly held that the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, contrary to precedent.
-
863 F.2d 1377·
8th Cir.·
1988-12-20
·cited 56×
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on an erroneous legal test for ineffective assistance of counsel and an unsupported assessment of the evidence.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding sentence enhancement, admissibility of prior convictions, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the petitioner had met the requirements of the exhaustion doctrine and that his retrial and conviction for embezzlement violated the double jeopardy clause.
-
The dissenting judge argued that even if jury instructions were erroneous under state law, federal habeas review was precluded by the petitioner's failure to object at trial, as required by Wainwright v. Sykes, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
-
-
The court held that a habeas petitioner is entitled to resentencing if a prior conviction obtained in violation of Gideon was considered by the sentencing judge, even if the prior conviction has not been invalidated in other collateral proceedings.
-
The state trial court's inquiry into the defendant's motion to substitute counsel, though brief, was sufficient under the circumstances, and thus the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
James Ernest Hitchcock appeals his death sentence imposed after a third remand for resentencing in a 1976 murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death sentence, rejecting all eighteen appellate claims as either procedurally barred or without merit.
-
The court held that using a co-conspirator's guilty plea as evidence of a defendant's guilt violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
-
605 F.2d 275·
6th Cir.·
1979-09-10
·cited 51×
A prosecutor's comment on a defendant's failure to testify, even if brief, is not harmless error if the evidence is not overwhelming and the trial contained other substantial errors.
-
Larry Eugene Mann, a death row inmate with an active execution warrant, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and public records requests, and petitioned for habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denials on all grounds,
-
The court held that a single error by counsel, even if resulting in a state law conviction reversal, does not render the entire trial fundamentally unfair or constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's unexplained refusal to stipulate to exculpatory polygraph evidence, which is otherwise admissible under state law, violates the defendant's due process rights.
-
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.
-
The federal court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus and enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. The petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies on the merits of his speedy trial claim and did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment claims regarding self-representation and ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as his Eighth Amendment claim regarding sentence proportionality, lacked merit, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
-
A state prisoner who failed to timely challenge grand jury composition under state law must show both cause and prejudice for federal habeas review, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise of appeal rights does not constitute cause for failing to challenge the
-
The court held that the undisclosed police report, useful only for impeachment, did not meet the stricter materiality standard required for a new trial, and thus did not violate due process.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's consultation with an attorney after a crime, which suggests guilt, constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and such error is not harmless when the defendant's credibility is central to the case.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief, holding that the petitioner's Batson claim was not procedurally barred from federal review because Alabama courts have not consistently applied a procedural bar in similar cases. The court further held tha
-
The district court erred in dismissing the second habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ.
-
573 F.2d 1360·
9th Cir.·
1978-05-03
·cited 48×
The court affirms the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, but the concurring opinion suggests a broader review for the government in extradition cases.
-
482 F.2d 465·
9th Cir.·
1973-07-20
·cited 48×
The court held that the defendant's demands to represent himself at trial were not unequivocal, and therefore, he was not denied his constitutional right to self-representation.
-
415 F.2d 991·
D.C. Cir.·
1969-06-26
·cited 48×
Civilian courts have jurisdiction to review court-martial convictions even if the serviceman is not in custody, and the standard of review for constitutional errors should be the same as for state and federal convictions.
-
-
The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's finding on direct appeal satisfied the Enmund requirement, and that Tafero's other claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and disparate sentencing, were without merit.
-
778 F.2d 1052·
5th Cir.·
1985-12-18
·cited 47×
A state agency's action, even if violating state law, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause unless it is also irrational or arbitrary under federal constitutional standards.
-
The court reinstated its prior judgment, holding that the state courts did not decide the constitutional claim on procedural grounds, thus federal habeas review of the merits is proper.
-
74 Fla. 91·
Fla.·
1917-07-14
·cited 47×
Simon Wilson was convicted of illegally selling intoxicating liquors in Marion County, Florida after a December 1915 election prohibited such sales. Wilson petitioned for habeas corpus, but the Florida Supreme Court upheld his conviction after determining that the prohibition ele
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to cases that became final before Hurst was decided, and therefore Knight cannot obtain federal habeas relief on that basis. The court also found that the Florida Supreme
-
The court held that a state court's adjudication of a constitutional claim on its merits, despite a procedural default, allows federal habeas review, and that a simple minute entry is insufficient to prove a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
-
602 F.2d 117·
6th Cir.·
1979-06-28
·cited 46×
The court held that while the prosecutor's closing argument was improper and inexcusable, it did not rise to the level of a due process violation warranting habeas corpus relief due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' reformation of a sentence, even if erroneous under state law, is a matter of state law and not a federal constitutional issue cognizable on federal habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated by the denial of counsel before the preliminary examination or by the admission of their confessions.
-
794 F.2d 1264·
7th Cir.·
1986-07-09
·cited 44×
The court held that Barrera's confession was voluntary and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as he knowingly and intelligently waived his rights despite the interrogation tactics used.
-
The dissenting judge disagrees with the majority's decision to reverse the dismissal and remand for appointment of counsel and reconsideration of other issues, arguing the majority erred in directing counsel appointment and in its approach to prisoner civil rights cases.
-
606 F.2d 371·
2d Cir.·
1979-10-01
·cited 44×
A prosecutor's knowing use or acquiescence in perjured testimony, even if only related to witness credibility, violates due process and warrants reversal.
-
A federal court must decline to decide any issues in a habeas corpus petition until all claims raised have been exhausted in state court, absent specific mitigating circumstances.
-
A contemporaneous objection to the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race is a necessary predicate for later raising a Batson claim, even in federal habeas corpus proceedings.