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
-
552 F.2d 385·
1st Cir.·
1977-03-31
·cited 24×
The court held that even if the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's silence was improper, it was rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by the trial judge's thorough jury instructions on the defendant's right not to testify.
-
544 F.2d 674·
3d Cir.·
1976-11-05
·cited 24×
The court held that prosecutorial remarks during summation, when viewed in context and considering defense provocation, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel or deny due process, and thus habeas corpus was improperly granted.
-
512 F.2d 496·
5th Cir.·
1975-04-30
·cited 24×
A confession obtained after an illegal arrest, without proper warnings or opportunity to consult counsel, is tainted and inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. Evidence seized during a warrantless search lacking clear and convincing proof of valid consent is also inadmiss
-
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is precluded from attacking jury composition due to failure to timely object, construing such failure as a waiver.
-
The court held that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to a juror's premature comment about the defendant's sanity, after a careful inquiry, was supported by manifest necessity and did not violate the petitioner's Fifth Amendment double jeopardy rights.
-
A defendant's counsel can waive constitutional objections as a matter of trial strategy, and this waiver binds the defendant, even if the state court initially considered the merits of the waived claims.
-
367 F.2d 990·
2d Cir.·
1966-09-20
·cited 24×
The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession without redaction, coupled with insufficient evidence and ineffective limiting instructions, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendmen
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a hearing on the motion to vacate sentence, as the record did not conclusively show the prisoner was entitled to no relief.
-
760 F.3d 1284·
11th Cir.·
2014-07-28
·cited 23×
Perry Alexander Taylor was convicted in 1989 of first-degree murder and sexual battery in the brutal killing of Geraldine Birch and sentenced to death. On federal habeas review, Taylor challenged the trial court's exclusion of testimony from the victim's sisters regarding her pri
-
642 F.3d 953·
11th Cir.·
2011-06-02
·cited 23×
Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for official behavior based largely on testimony from Willie Junior, a co-conspirator who entered a plea agreement with the State. Childers sought to cross-examine Junior about the Elliot acquittal and a Notice
-
323 F.3d 884·
11th Cir.·
2003-03-05
·cited 23×
Robert Hart was convicted of two murders and armed robbery based primarily on a taped confession obtained after he signed a Miranda waiver form. The Eleventh Circuit granted habeas relief, holding that Hart's waiver was involuntary and not made with full awareness of his rights b
-
887 F.2d 1407·
11th Cir.·
1989-09-29
·cited 23×
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the filing fee requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. Although habeas corpus proceedings are technically civil in nature, they are hybrid actions sui gener
-
26 F.3d 1562·
11th Cir.·
1994-08-03
·cited 22×
Genevieve Yapp, arrested in The Bahamas for drug trafficking in 1986, failed to appear for trial and was sought for extradition by the United States in 1988. Yapp argued that Article 5 of the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United States and The Bahamas barred her extradition
-
899 F.2d 1104·
11th Cir.·
1990-04-30
·cited 22×
The court held that a suspect's question to an officer about whether he should get a lawyer constitutes an equivocal request for counsel, requiring further questioning to cease until the request is clarified.
-
The court held that both the Sandstrom and Jackson claims must be dismissed under Rule 9(b) as successive petitions, and the district court's denial of relief is affirmed.
-
888 F.2d 1286·
10th Cir.·
1989-10-24
·cited 22×
The dissenting judge would hold that the prosecutor's remarks constituted Caldwell error, violating the Eighth Amendment, and thus the death sentence must be vacated.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
815 F.2d 509·
8th Cir.·
1987-04-03
·cited 22×
The court held that when a prosecutor volunteers reasons for exercising peremptory challenges, those reasons are subject to review for pretext, and if found to be discriminatory, violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
704 F.2d 1213·
11th Cir.·
1983-05-09
·cited 22×
Fingerprint evidence alone, under proper circumstances, can be sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction against a constitutional challenge for sufficiency of evidence. A prosecutor's comment on the lack of defense evidence, rather than the defendant's failure to testify, is no
-
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.
-
676 F.2d 261·
7th Cir.·
1982-04-16
·cited 22×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without reviewing the full state court record, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8).
-
646 F.2d 355·
9th Cir.·
1981-05-26
·cited 22×
The majority opinion holds that the Wainwright v. Sykes rule is not implicated by the defendant's jury instruction claim, and that even if it were, the defendant satisfied the cause and prejudice requirements. The dissent disagrees with both holdings.
-
The court held that the petitioner's nolo contendere plea was voluntary and intelligently made, despite his claims of ineffective counsel.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding no violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
-
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
-
756 F.2d 1500·
11th Cir.·
1985-03-26
·cited 21×
The court held that the prior panel's opinion did not implicitly require resentencing by a jury, and the petitioner's claim regarding jury instructions on mitigating circumstances is barred by procedural default.
-
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.
-
354 F.2d 469·
5th Cir.·
1965-12-06
·cited 21×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without a full hearing, as serious constitutional questions regarding the adequacy of counsel and the application of parole revocation statutes were raised.
-
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.
-
758 F.3d 1263·
11th Cir.·
2014-07-15
·cited 20×
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the state court's rejection of the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable application of federal law and an unreasonable determination of the facts. T
-
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.
-
841 F.2d 1197·
1st Cir.·
1988-03-15
·cited 20×
The court held that the state courts' refusal to interview a juror, based on a weak showing of potential bias, did not violate due process, and thus federal habeas relief was inappropriate.
-
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
-
818 F.2d 1369·
7th Cir.·
1987-05-18
·cited 20×
The court held that the admission of evidence of other home invasions for modus operandi, the sufficiency of the evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to the level of constitutional error denying a fair trial.
-
786 F.2d 610·
4th Cir.·
1986-03-10
·cited 20×
The court held that a state trial court's denial of a continuance, which resulted in the defendant proceeding to trial without counsel, did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a lack of fair opportunity to secure counsel and the denial was