-
498 F.2d 207·
8th Cir.·
1974-06-04
·cited 183×
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to conduct any pretrial investigation beyond interviewing the defendant constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, violating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
428 F.2d 912·
2d Cir.·
1970-05-27
·cited 102×
The court held that the state court's finding that the suggestive station-house identification did not taint the subsequent in-court identification was supported by the record and binding on federal habeas review.
-
771 F.2d 1382·
10th Cir.·
1985-08-26
·cited 90×
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or mistrial based on co-defendant's opening statement.
-
426 F.2d 1275·
1st Cir.·
1970-06-03
·cited 44×
The court held that the in-court identifications were admissible as they had an independent basis, and remanded the speedy trial issue due to uncertainty regarding counsel's representation and the defendant's awareness of his rights.
-
850 F.2d 1402·
11th Cir.·
1988-07-07
·cited 39×
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no abuse of the writ, no incompetence to stand trial, no denial of choice of counsel, no ineffective assistance of counsel, no improper Faretta inquiry, no constitutional issue regarding the race of t
-
481 F.2d 152·
2d Cir.·
1973-06-14
·cited 39×
-
408 F.2d 1306·
D.C. Cir.·
1969-02-12
·cited 34×
The court held that even if identification testimony was improperly admitted, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
476 F.2d 37·
2d Cir.·
1973-03-26
·cited 28×
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that under circuit precedent, Bruton v. United States does not apply when codefendants' confessions interlock.
-
405 F.2d 625·
5th Cir.·
1969-01-16
·cited 22×
The court held that the defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that his procedural challenges regarding witness testimony, jury instructions, and grand jury proceedings lacked merit.
-
671 F.2d 1150·
8th Cir.·
1982-03-01
·cited 20×
The dissenting judge holds that the defendant's statements were voluntary and admissible, distinguishing the case from Edwards v. Arizona.
-
506 F.2d 166·
D.C. Cir.·
1974-10-07
·cited 18×
The court held that the police entry into the motel room was unconstitutional because it was not justified by exigent circumstances, consent, hot pursuit, or as a search incident to arrest, and therefore the evidence seized was inadmissible.
-
944 F.2d 1363·
7th Cir.·
1991-09-26
·cited 16×
The court concurs in the judgment, finding the standard for harmless constitutional error in collateral review is settled law in the circuit.
-
577 F.2d 411·
7th Cir.·
1978-05-26
·cited 14×
The admission of testimony regarding the victim's pretrial identification of the defendant was harmless constitutional error because the victim's in-court identification was reliable and based on an independent source, and the failure to provide a transcript of the preliminary he
-
597 F.2d 927·
5th Cir.·
1979-06-25
·cited 12×
The admission into evidence of an unlawfully obtained incriminating statement, elicited during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, was not harmless constitutional error because it may have contributed to the conviction.
-
480 F.2d 504·
6th Cir.·
1973-06-15
·cited 12×
The court held that the Brooks decision, extending Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, should be applied prospectively, meaning it applies to critical stages occurring after the Brooks decision.
-
442 F.2d 561·
2d Cir.·
1971-04-19
·cited 12×
The admission of prior testimony from a witness who was not made available for cross-examination at retrial, despite the prosecution's failure to make a good-faith effort to secure his presence, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
-
413 F.2d 45·
5th Cir.·
1969-07-02
·cited 12×
The court held that the appellant could not assert the Fifth Amendment rights of his co-conspirators, nor could he claim his indictment was unlawful based on alleged violations of their rights.
-
285 So. 2d 418·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1973-08-31
·cited 8×
William Horton was convicted of rape in a joint trial with his brother Leslie. The trial court suppressed William's own statements under Miranda, but allowed Leslie's incriminating statements against William at trial despite William's lack of opportunity to cross-examine Leslie.
-
385 F.2d 478·
3d Cir.·
1967-11-06
·cited 6×
The court held that subjecting the defendant to a trial with the possibility of the death penalty, after a prior conviction with a recommendation of life imprisonment, constituted harmless constitutional error.
-
424 F.2d 647·
3d Cir.·
1970-03-26
·cited 4×
The court held that the failure to give limiting instructions to the jury regarding the use of accomplice confessions, even if Cheeks' confession was found involuntary, did not constitute a denial of due process or federal constitutional error.
-
942 F.2d 405·
6th Cir.·
1991-08-22
·cited 2×
The court held that even if jury instructions contained error regarding the 'contemporary community standards' prong of the obscenity test, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the obvious obscenity of the materials.
-
675 F.2d 781·
6th Cir.·
1982-03-22
·cited 2×
Even if jury instructions were constitutionally infirm, any error was harmless because the assailant's intent was not in issue and the facts provided ample evidence of intent.
-
611 F.2d 1385·
5th Cir.·
1980-02-20
Any error in arraigning the appellant without counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because no substantial prejudice occurred.