Habeas Corpus

18,792 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3,111 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Blair v. Delo
  999 F.2d 1219· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court granted a temporary stay of execution because the petitioner's claim, though questionable, was not "frivolous and entirely without merit" given the differing opinions in a relevant Supreme Court case.
• Hoversten v. State OF Iowa
  998 F.2d 614· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-13 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the use of a one-way mirror to shield a child witness from the defendant violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because no case-specific finding of necessity was made, and this error was not harmless.
• Lynch v. Blodgett
  999 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-13 ·cited 2×
  A state prisoner appealing the denial of a post-judgment motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in a federal habeas corpus proceeding must obtain a certificate of probable cause.
• Jerrold S. Flemming v. Or. Bd. OF Parole
  998 F.2d 721· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The retroactive application of an amended parole regulation that limits potential sentence reductions violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• Stoner v. Sowders
  997 F.2d 209· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The admission of videotaped depositions of witnesses without a sufficient showing of their unavailability violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Lips v. Commandant
  997 F.2d 808· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-01 ·cited 2×
  Federal civil courts should not grant habeas corpus relief if military courts have given the petitioner's claims full and fair consideration.
• Echlin v. LeCUREUX
  995 F.2d 1344· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that extending Batson v. Kentucky to allow white defendants to challenge a prosecutor's peremptory strikes against white prospective jurors constitutes a "new rule" under Teague v. Lane, which cannot be applied retroactively on collateral review.
• Stephens v. Miller
  989 F.2d 264· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-09 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding a conversation during the alleged incident violated his Sixth Amendment right to testify and was not harmless error.
• Sandoval v. Gerado Acevedo
  996 F.2d 145· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that even if the exclusion of certain impeachment evidence violated the defendant's constitutional rights, the judge's curative instruction rendered the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and a sentence challenge failed.
• Aponte v. Gomez
  993 F.2d 705· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-19 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the California Supreme Court's interpretation of sentencing statutes, excluding a quantity enhancement from the double-base-term limitation, was not a violation of due process or the Ex Post Facto Clause.
• Silverburg v. Evitts
  993 F.2d 124· 6th Cir.· 1993-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies by not presenting his claims to the Kentucky Supreme Court, and his claims were procedurally barred under state law.
• Gisbert v. U.S. Attorney General
  988 F.2d 1437· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the continued detention of excluded aliens, even if indefinite, does not violate their constitutional rights, is within the Attorney General's discretionary power, and is not prohibited by international law.
• McKINNEY v. Rees
  993 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The erroneous admission of irrelevant character evidence, which preyed on jury emotions and was not supported by a strong case, rendered the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair and violated due process.
• Enoch McQueen v. Whitley
  989 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a petition challenging a prior conviction used to enhance a current sentence constitutes an abuse of the writ if the claim could have been raised in a prior petition challenging the enhanced sentence.
• United States v. Peak
  992 F.2d 39· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-16 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The failure of a criminal defense attorney to file a requested notice of appeal constitutes a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, regardless of the potential merit of the lost appeal.
• Panther v. Hames
  991 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-16 ·cited 2×
  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that Alaska's criminally negligent homicide statute is not unconstitutionally vague, the jury instructions were adequate, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and prosecutorial miscondu
• Benny Hatley v. A.L. Lockhart
  990 F.2d 1070· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-13 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding jury selection, admission of photographs, and his confession were without merit and affirmed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Lowery v. Collins
  988 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a videotaped interview of a child complainant, without the child testifying in court and being subject to cross-examination, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and such an error is not harmless when the videotape likely contributed to the convic
• In re the Request for Extradition OF Peter Gabriel John McMULLEN by the Gov't of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland. Peter G.J. McMULLEN v. United States
  989 F.2d 603· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The Supplementary Treaty constitutes a Bill of Attainder because it specifies individuals, inflicts punishment by removing a defense and assuring extradition, and does so without a judicial trial.
• Sawyers v. Collins
  986 F.2d 1493· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's Penry claim was not procedurally barred, but that it lacked factual support. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not required for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the request for a certificate of probable
• Beets v. Collins
  986 F.2d 1478· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the lawyer's decision not to testify, which could have aided the defense, constituted an adverse effect under the Cuyler standard, even if it didn't prove actual prejudice.
• United States v. Gipson
  985 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that counsel's failure to inform the defendant of the ten-day deadline for filing an appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and the defendant did not waive his right to appeal.
• Schmidt v. United States
  987 F.2d 536· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-04 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the substance of the buyer-seller relationship issue, and therefore, there was no reasonable probability of a different trial outcome had the requested instruction been given.
• Kennedy v. Odie Washington
  986 F.2d 1129· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant was not implicitly acquitted of murder by the jury's inconsistent verdicts, as the jury's confusion and the flawed instructions prevented a clear finding of acting under sudden and intense passion.
• Harrell v. McMILLAN
  614 So. 2d 1185· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-02-19 ·cited 2×
  Harrell petitions for mandamus or habeas corpus after being denied pretrial release when she attempted to satisfy multiple cash bond conditions by posting a single surety bond. The court grants relief, holding that cash bond conditions may be automatically satisfied by appropriat
• LaPIER v. McCORMICK
  986 F.2d 303· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-16 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A defendant claiming Indian status for criminal jurisdiction purposes must be affiliated with a federally acknowledged Indian tribe.
• Burnett v. Collins
  982 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that compelling a defendant to provide a voice exemplar, even with prejudicial language, does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or due process, and that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not substantiated.
• United States v. Foster
  985 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-03 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a prosecutor's questioning of a defendant about her post-arrest silence, despite a timely objection and the court's instruction to answer, violated the Fifth Amendment and was not harmless error, requiring reversal of her conviction.
• Gael O'Riorden v. State
  611 So. 2d 623· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-01-27 ·cited 2×
• Thompson v. Collins
  981 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×
  A habeas petitioner must be in custody pursuant to the conviction they are challenging at the time the petition is filed, even if that conviction was used to enhance another conviction for which they were in custody.
• Rust v. Hopkins
  984 F.2d 1486· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Nebraska Supreme Court's application of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for aggravating factors for the first time on appeal, rather than by the sentencing panel, violated Rust's due process rights and statutory entitlements.
• Krantz v. Briggs
  983 F.2d 961· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant was 'in custody' for Miranda purposes is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• Pagan v. Keane
  984 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·cited 2×
  A district court has discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case, even if not strictly required, and this discretion was erroneously believed to be absent by the lower court.
• Roller v. Cavanaugh
  984 F.2d 120· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-15 ·cited 2×
  A statutory amendment increasing the time between parole reconsiderations from one year to two years, when applied to prisoners whose crimes were committed before the amendment, constitutes an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
• Jordan v. Ducharme
  983 F.2d 933· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-11 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the exclusion of an attorney from witness preparation during a pretrial lineup did not violate the Sixth Amendment, and any constitutional error was harmless. The court also held that the exclusion of evidence regarding dismissed counts and misidentifications,
• Grubbs v. Hannigan
  982 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction despite exculpatory blood test results, and the victim's identification, though from a suggestive procedure, was reliable enough to not violate due process.
• Hawkins v. Collins
  980 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-23 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are barred by the abuse of the writ doctrine because they were not raised in his prior federal habeas petitions and no sufficient legal cause was shown for the failure to do so.
• Castillo v. Stainer
  983 F.2d 145· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to follow proper procedures for shackling the defendant, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the restraints were not visible to the jury and did not impede the defendant's ability to communicate with
• Wise v. Williams
  982 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's federal habeas corpus claims were procedurally barred due to his failure to timely file a notice of appeal in state court, and no exceptions applied.
• Manlove v. Tansy
  981 F.2d 473· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
• Jernigan v. Collins
  980 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-15 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that Jernigan failed to demonstrate that any errors by his counsel or the trial judge prejudiced his trial, and thus he is not entitled to habeas relief.
• Cates v. Superintendent, Ind. Youth Ctr.
  981 F.2d 949· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-11 ·cited 2×
  Joint representation of co-defendants does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel unless the defendant demonstrates an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance. A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives prior
• Laville Hannon v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  981 F.2d 1142· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-10 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of an unconditional writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's counsel's failure to file a timely appeal constituted ineffective assistance and that the state waived arguments regarding exhaustion and abuse of the writ.
• United States v. Noriega
  808 F. Supp. 791· S.D. Fla.· 1992-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while it lacks authority to order the Bureau of Prisons to place General Noriega in a specific facility, it has the right and duty to recommend a facility type. The court also found that General Noriega is a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention and that
• Morrison v. Estelle
  981 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue inadequate notice of a felony-murder charge, as the appellant received constitutionally adequate notice through trial proceedings and evidence presented.
• Esnault v. People of the State of Colo.
  980 F.2d 1335· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to be present when the court confers with counsel regarding a jury's question about admitted evidence, nor when the court provides a purely legal answer to such a question.
• Williams v. Groose
  979 F.2d 1335· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel and in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ.
• Mathis v. Singletary
  608 So. 2d 565· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-11-19 ·cited 2×
• Wilcher v. Hargett
  978 F.2d 872· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague, requiring vacatur of the death sentence unless the state initiates further proceedings. Other claims were affirmed.
• Fairchild v. A.L. Lockhart
  979 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding Fairchild's confessions voluntary and reliable, and that his Brady claims constituted an abuse of the writ as he failed to demonstrate prejudice.