207 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 489 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
474 F.2d 1356·
3d Cir.·
1973-03-05
·cited 10×
The court held that the state suppression hearing was adequate and the trial court correctly determined the confession was voluntary, affirming the denial of habeas corpus.
-
261 So. 2d 855·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1972-05-16
·cited 10×
Herbert Lee Williams was convicted of second-degree murder for his role as an accomplice in a robbery-homicide. He appealed on three grounds: that a detective's testimony about oral statements should have been excluded because a written confession was inadmissible, that the evide
-
450 F.2d 181·
2d Cir.·
1971-11-01
·cited 10×
The court held that a confession obtained through deception, without other coercive circumstances, is not rendered involuntary under pre-Miranda law, and thus habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
-
The court held that the appellant's allegations entitled him to an evidentiary hearing and that venue was proper in the New Orleans Division.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to present sufficient particularized allegations and supporting material to warrant a federal habeas corpus hearing on the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
-
422 F.2d 1052·
5th Cir.·
1970-02-20
·cited 10×
The court held that no evidentiary hearing was required in this habeas corpus proceeding because the petitioner's contentions were adequately addressed by the trial court and supported by the record.
-
The court held that the appellant had exhausted his state remedies because there was no clear Ohio Supreme Court interpretation allowing a delayed appeal from the Court of Appeals' denial of a delayed appeal.
-
The court should affirm the district court's denial of the petition without a hearing, as the claims are insubstantial.
-
406 F.2d 1295·
5th Cir.·
1969-02-05
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to vacate judgment and sentence without an evidentiary hearing.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority misapplied Supreme Court precedent regarding the burden of proof in habeas corpus cases concerning coerced confessions.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the conviction for attempting to bribe an officer.
-
377 F.2d 526·
9th Cir.·
1967-04-21
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without a hearing on the voluntariness of the confession, as the record did not establish a deliberate bypass of state procedures.
-
The court held that the record must be enlarged and the petitioner must be accorded a hearing to determine the voluntariness of his guilty plea and confession.
-
The court held that the petition did not allege facts sufficient to show a violation of federal constitutional rights, thus denying habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that while the Escobedo rule applies prospectively, new claims of coerced confession and inadequate counsel are not foreclosed by a guilty plea.
-
The court held that a prisoner not yet in custody for a federal sentence cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to attack that sentence, but may pursue relief via writ of error coram nobis if justice compels.
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, finding that the admission of a coerced confession violated due process and that the state's argument of waiver was unsupported.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and admissible, affirming the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition.
-
300 F.2d 414·
7th Cir.·
1962-02-15
·cited 10×
The concurring judge agrees with the majority's result but disagrees with the reasoning that the brutality of a murder proves immunity to coercion.
-
The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights.
-
The court held that a confession obtained prior to arraignment is inadmissible, even if voluntary, under the rule established in Upshaw.
-
The court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to sustain the order discharging the writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that even if police made improper statements regarding relatives, the confessions were not rendered involuntary without a clear causal connection, and the jury was properly instructed.
-
The court held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to raise issues concerning the admissibility of evidence that could have been raised on direct appeal.
-
The court held that a guilty plea entered with counsel present, even if preceded by confessions obtained in violation of McNabb, is valid if the confessions were not used in the proceedings where the plea was entered.
-
29 So. 3d 1178·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2010-03-10
·cited 9×
Day was convicted of sexual battery and lewd conduct based on a confession obtained during police interrogation. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the confession was involuntary because the investigating officer's repeated promises of help and implicit su
-
The court held that the Des Plaines confession was voluntary and that the Batson claim was barred by Teague v. Lane because Powers v. Ohio announced a new rule.
-
The court held that limiting cross-examination into a witness's potential deal with the state violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
-
Bryant appeals an order denying his Rule 1 petition for relief from a 1947 guilty plea to rape. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the trial court properly exercised discretion in conducting the evidentiary hearing without Bryant's physical presence and that Bryant faile
-
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, but the concurring judge expressed uncertainty about the reasoning regarding the voluntariness of a guilty plea.
-
Although the prosecutor's characterization of defense counsel's closing argument as employing "tactic" constituted improper denigration of the defense, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the comment was isolated, corroborating evidence existed, the jury rece
-
184 So. 3d 1138·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2015-10-14
·cited 8×
Darius Bussey appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress custodial statements he made to detectives in Georgia. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that the detectives' repeated references to the dea
-
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing on claims of failure to investigate an alibi and a coerced confession.
-
691 So. 2d 43·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1997-04-04
·cited 8×
Court reversed denial of postconviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding failure to suppress allegedly coerced confession, finding factual allegations sufficient to require evidentiary hearing under Strickland.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion regarding the alleged failure to suppress a coerced confession and the failure to investigate exculpatory witnesses.
-
The court held that a defendant's initial false statement to investigators, which was a denial of guilt, did not warrant a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice, but false testimony under oath at a suppression hearing did.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, not just the presence of promises, determines confession voluntariness, and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that breaks in custody, changes in interrogation location and interrogators, and proper Miranda warnings vitiated an initial violation of the Edwards rule, and that subsequent confessions were voluntary.
-
The court should afford Hall an evidentiary hearing on his claim of newly discovered evidence.
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the ultimate issue of confession voluntariness, which is a question of law, not a finding of fact. The case must be reexamined in light of Miller v. Fenton.
-
The court should remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law because the district court denied a suppression motion without adequate findings, making appellate review impossible.
-
A juvenile's confession was obtained after a police officer promised he would not be charged if he confessed. Although the officer later withdrew the promise when the juvenile was caught lying, the court held the subsequent confession inadmissible because the juvenile reasonably
-
The admission of Harrison's oral incriminating statements to police was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because his subsequent confession to a friend was nearly identical and admitted into evidence.
-
407 So. 2d 368·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1981-12-18
·cited 8×
Brockelbank was convicted of ten counts of burglary and grand theft based on confessions obtained after police promised to release him from custody. The court reversed his conviction, holding that confessions induced by promises of benefit are involuntary and inadmissible.
-
The court held that the state trial court's failure to conduct a pretrial competency inquiry did not violate federal constitutional standards because the facts presented did not raise a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's competence.
-
The court held that it has the power to remand a case to the district court for a determination of excusable neglect, even if appellate jurisdiction is uncertain.
-
570 F.2d 819·
8th Cir.·
1978-02-21
·cited 8×
The court held that the appellant failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the appellee prosecutor's actions, both in obtaining the confession and in his alleged concealment, were either not actionable or not performed under color of state law.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
-
The court held that the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest the petitioner based on witness descriptions and the arresting officer's personal knowledge of the neighborhood and its inhabitants. The court also held that the state trial court adequately determined the vo
-
The court held that the government's use of a defendant's self-incriminating statements, obtained after a blanket promise of immunity from a government agent, violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, even when used for rebuttal.