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
-
417 F.2d 479·
8th Cir.·
1969-10-24
·cited 34×
The court held that the petitioner was not denied constitutional rights during the pretrial investigation, post-trial review, or military trial, and therefore, his habeas corpus petition was properly denied.
-
Federal courts must consider exhausted claims in habeas corpus petitions even if unexhausted claims are also present, especially if the unexhausted claims are unrelated or frivolous.
-
A federal prisoner who, through counsel, intentionally bypasses orderly procedures for raising a Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim at trial or on direct appeal, waives that claim and cannot raise it in a subsequent Section 2255 motion.
-
William Greg Thomas, a Florida death row inmate, challenged the timeliness of his federal habeas petition, which was filed nearly nine months after AEDPA's one-year deadline expired because his appointed counsel, Mary Catherine Bonner, deliberately delayed filing to use his case
-
216 F.3d 951·
11th Cir.·
2000-06-27
·cited 33×
Douglas Ray Meeks, an African-American man, was convicted of two murders in Taylor County, Florida in 1974-1975: the stabbing death of Chevis Thompson during a robbery attempt at the Majik Market, and the shooting death of Lloyd Walker during a robbery at the Junior Food Store. T
-
The court held that a petitioner seeking to raise successive or abusive habeas claims must demonstrate actual innocence of the death penalty, which requires showing a fair probability that a rational trier of fact would have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the existence of t
-
673 F.2d 1185·
11th Cir.·
1982-04-19
·cited 33×
A habeas petitioner is entitled to relief only upon a showing that a juror was actually biased or incompetent, not merely that the juror was statutorily disqualified or underage.
-
The failure of retained counsel to file a promised appeal constitutes a Sixth Amendment violation, entitling the defendant to an out-of-time appeal.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims for federal habeas relief based on alleged trial errors, including improper evidence admission, prosecutorial misconduct, and suggestive identification procedures, were without merit.
-
89 Fla. 477·
Fla.·
1925-06-03
·cited 33×
In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court held that while the City of Pensacola had statutory authority to regulate billiard tables and similar establishments, the arrest and detention of Charles Liberis was unlawful because the affidavit supporting the arrest w
-
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its handling of potential conflicts of interest regarding joint representation and that faulty jury instructions on intent were harmless error given the facts of the case.
-
789 F.2d 438·
7th Cir.·
1986-04-09
·cited 32×
The court should affirm the district court's judgment because the prosecutor's improper inquiry did not affect the verdict and was harmless error.
-
Johnny Paul Witt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1973 killing of an 11-year-old boy. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Witt's challenges to the admission of his confession, the Florida Sup
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to explain his failure to raise claims in a prior petition.
-
The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
-
The court held that enforcement of Oklahoma's contemporaneous objection rule in this case fails to serve a legitimate state interest and should not bar review of the federal question.
-
635 F.2d 414·
5th Cir.·
1981-01-27
·cited 32×
The court concurred that the trial judge's sua sponte grant of a mistrial was violative of manifest necessity standards, but denied habeas relief because the Jorn decision does not retroactively apply to the pre-Jorn mistrial.
-
-
618 F.2d 583·
9th Cir.·
1980-05-09
·cited 32×
-
A federal court should dismiss a habeas petition containing only unexhausted claims, even if the district court erroneously reached the merits, to allow the state courts the first opportunity to address the claims.
-
An accidental pre-trial encounter between an accused and a witness can support a federal habeas corpus claim if the encounter was unnecessarily suggestive and undermined the reliability of the subsequent identification.
-
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.
-
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.
-
479 F.2d 446·
5th Cir.·
1973-05-29
·cited 32×
The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
-
The court held that the record affirmatively showed the guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, satisfying due process requirements.
-
460 F.2d 1175·
5th Cir.·
1972-04-14
·cited 32×
The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding the appellant's claim frivolous and outside the scope of review for internal military affairs.
-
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.
-
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.
-
758 F.2d 1431·
11th Cir.·
1985-04-25
·cited 31×
The court held that the late disclosure of the word "silencio" did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
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.
-
649 F.2d 1336·
9th Cir.·
1981-07-06
·cited 31×
The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled for Caplan's flight and that the district court failed to adequately establish dual criminality and the principle of specialty for the remaining charges, requiring a remand.
-
948 F.2d 1473·
9th Cir.·
1990-12-26
·cited 30×
The court held that the panel erred in its harmless error analysis by incorrectly assuming Arizona is not a weighing state, which requires reevaluation when an invalid aggravating factor is present.
-
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.
-
794 F.2d 491·
9th Cir.·
1986-07-14
·cited 30×
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an exclusion order, and that the denial of suspension of deportation for the other petitioners was not an abuse of discretion as they failed to demonstrate extreme hardship.
-
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
-
589 F.2d 108·
2d Cir.·
1978-12-19
·cited 30×
The court held that the admission of identification testimony from three eyewitnesses, tainted by suggestive police procedures, constituted a denial of due process.
-
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
-
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.
-
93 Fla. 332·
Fla.·
1927-02-19
·cited 30×
Charles Browne, convicted of murder in the first degree, sought habeas corpus relief challenging his death sentence by electrocution. The Florida Supreme Court held that because the crime was committed in October 1923, before the January 1, 1924 statute replacing hanging with ele
-
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
-
720 F.2d 1206·
11th Cir.·
1983-11-16
·cited 29×
A jury instruction creating a mandatory rebuttable presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of their voluntary acts unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on the element of intent, violating due process.
-
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.
-
527 F.2d 956·
1st Cir.·
1976-01-09
·cited 29×
The court held that the 1973 extradition treaty between the U.S. and Italy imposes stricter evidentiary standards than 18 U.S.C. § 3190, requiring evidence to be given under oath or with warnings of penal sanctions.