7,506 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 5,490 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that while the petitioner exhausted his Sixth Amendment claim, the per se rule from Solina v. United States does not apply when counsel is disbarred during a pretrial proceeding but withdraws upon learning of the disbarment and had no incentive to fear exposure fro
-
841 F.2d 677·
6th Cir.·
1988-03-07
·cited 16×
The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section violation because young adults and college students are not distinctive groups, and the underrepresentation of women was not shown to be the result of systematic excl
-
840 F.2d 454·
7th Cir.·
1988-02-10
·cited 16×
The court held that the State's knowing failure to disclose the identity of an alibi rebuttal witness violated due process and was not harmless error.
-
839 F.2d 933·
3d Cir.·
1988-02-10
·cited 16×
The court held that the writ of habeas corpus was issued in error and Marshall must be returned to prison, but the majority erred in voiding the penalty for Marshall's first prison infraction.
-
The court held that while the petitioner's Miranda rights were not violated regarding his conviction, the jury instruction at the sentencing phase created an unconstitutional presumption of death, requiring a new sentencing hearing.
-
833 F.2d 59·
5th Cir.·
1987-12-03
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court's finding that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was prejudiced by his attorney's misinformation regarding parole eligibility was not clearly erroneous.
-
515 So. 2d 189·
Fla.·
1987-11-10
·cited 16×
The court held that the trial court's determination of competency to be executed was supported by competent substantial evidence and that the appellant's procedural claims lacked merit.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation based on the prosecutor's remarks regarding appellate review, as the trial court provided a sufficient curative instruction. Therefore, the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition is affirmed.
-
828 F.2d 656·
10th Cir.·
1987-09-17
·cited 16×
The federal court held that while prosecutorial error occurred by using perjured testimony, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming corroborating evidence. The district court's grant of habeas corpus was therefore vacated.
-
The court held that omissions from the Rule 11 colloquy were not serious enough to vacate the sentence, ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed due to lack of prejudice, and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act was not violated.
-
821 F.2d 179·
3d Cir.·
1987-06-15
·cited 16×
A habeas petitioner must provide specific factual allegations of state obstruction to excuse the failure to exhaust state remedies, and vague claims are insufficient to warrant discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
-
816 F.2d 1502·
11th Cir.·
1987-04-30
·cited 16×
The court held that the introduction of 'other crimes' evidence did not deny the petitioner a fair trial, and the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause to excuse his procedural default in challenging jury composition.
-
817 F.2d 183·
1st Cir.·
1987-04-29
·cited 16×
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and even if considered, did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice.
-
The court held that juror misconduct and bias, while serious, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury.
-
The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies because he failed to file a motion in state court asserting his speedy trial claim based on sentencing delay, despite available procedures.
-
-
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions for felony-murder and an underlying felony if the underlying felony is not the sole basis for the felony-murder prosecution, nor is it implicated by considering a crime as an aggravating circumstance during sentencin
-
795 F.2d 738·
9th Cir.·
1986-07-24
·cited 16×
The court held that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the petitioner had already departed the United States under a grant of voluntary departure and lawfully reentered, making effective relief impossible.
-
The District Court did not err in asserting jurisdiction over Pearson's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying the Commission's motion to transfer the case.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to prove federal constitutional infirmities in his trial, affirming the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea and sentence enhancement were constitutionally valid, as the record demonstrated the plea was knowing and voluntary, and the enhanced sentence was based on adequate warnings and counsel's authorized admissions.
-
786 F.2d 536·
2d Cir.·
1986-03-20
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition because the state court's acceptance of the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, violating due process.
-
778 F.2d 1044·
5th Cir.·
1985-12-17
·cited 16×
The court held that the petitioner is procedurally barred from raising a due process claim regarding jury instructions because his trial counsel failed to object, and he failed to demonstrate cause for this failure.
-
The court holds that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's finding of fact regarding the prosecutor's questioning is entitled to deference, and the jury instruction given is sufficiently different from that in Francis v. Franklin to warrant affirmance.
-
The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its determination of dangerous special offender status was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The admission of other crimes evidence, even if erroneous under state law, does not warrant federal habeas corpus relief unless it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Denial of continuances for alibi witnesses was not an abuse of discretion given defense counsel's lack of dil
-
768 F.2d 491·
2d Cir.·
1985-07-22
·cited 16×
The court held that the failure to disclose the pre-sentence report to the prisoner's counsel violated due process, but affirmed the Commission's right to deviate from the hearing examiners' recommendations and reversed the district court's order regarding consideration of co-def
-
The court held that a jury instruction creating a mandatory rebuttable presumption of criminal intent unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant.
-
The Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted by Burks and Bullington, prevents the state from seeking the death penalty on retrial when a prior federal habeas court found insufficient evidence to support the aggravating factors for the death sentence.
-
760 F.2d 884·
8th Cir.·
1985-04-29
·cited 16×
The prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments suggesting an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to call corroborating defense witnesses were not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial or violate due process.
-
The court held that the 'cause and prejudice' rule of Wainwright v. Sykes applies to procedural defaults in state court, requiring a habeas petitioner to demonstrate cause and prejudice for failure to raise issues on direct appeal.
-
757 F.2d 1463·
4th Cir.·
1985-03-20
·cited 16×
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were without merit and that the state court's factfinding procedures were adequate.
-
The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and intelligent, and that a claim for denial of compulsory process was procedurally defaulted and not preserved.
-
749 F.2d 1503·
11th Cir.·
1985-01-08
·cited 16×
The dissenting judge would reverse and remand the case to the Northern District of Alabama for a ruling on jurisdiction, arguing the district court improperly transferred the case without exercising its discretion.
-
The court held that the petitioner's remaining arguments for habeas corpus relief lacked merit, affirming the denial of the petition. Procedural defaults barred consideration of certain claims, and others failed on the merits.
-
The court should have granted the writ of habeas corpus and released the petitioner unless the state trial court articulated compelling reasons for holding him to bail he could not meet.
-
742 F.2d 669·
1st Cir.·
1984-08-27
·cited 16×
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a speedy trial were without merit.
-
736 F.2d 1264·
8th Cir.·
1984-06-25
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the identification procedures, viewed in totality, did not create a substantial likelihood of misidentification, and the jury instructions did not rise to the level of constitutional err
-
736 F.2d 1241·
8th Cir.·
1984-06-20
·cited 16×
A federal habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed, and the futility exception to exhaustion requires a clear manifestation that state courts will refuse to entertain claims, not merely a prediction of an unfavorable outcome.
-
738 F.2d 168·
7th Cir.·
1984-05-14
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding the admission of flight evidence or the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges, and procedural defaults barr
-
A prisoner erroneously released is entitled to credit for the time spent at liberty, and this claim is not subject to administrative exhaustion requirements applicable to parole matters.
-
732 F.2d 53·
6th Cir.·
1984-04-12
·cited 16×
The court held that the record was inadequate to determine if the trial court exercised sound discretion in declaring mistrials, thus reversing the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea to an open charge of murder was voluntary and knowing, despite alleged insufficiencies in the advisement of rights and consequences.
-
721 F.2d 1493·
11th Cir.·
1983-12-30
·cited 16×
The en banc court held that group questioning and non-verbal responses during voir dire do not per se violate Witherspoon standards, and that the specific voir dire procedures used in this case comported with those standards.
-
719 F.2d 390·
11th Cir.·
1983-11-10
·cited 16×
The court held that a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is not required to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court to exhaust state remedies.
-
718 F.2d 979·
11th Cir.·
1983-10-13
·cited 16×
The court held that a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney actively represents conflicting interests and fails to present mitigating evidence at sentencing, and prejudice is presumed in conflict of interest cases.
-
The court held that a state's failure to provide notice to defense counsel of a psychiatric examination does not violate the Sixth Amendment when the defendant has asserted an insanity defense, as this waives the right to consult counsel on the decision to undergo the examination
-
A federal habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they did not receive a full and fair state court hearing on alleged facts entitling them to relief and the record reveals a genuine factual dispute. The court found such a dispute existed regarding ineffective a
-
The dissenting judge believes the trial judge's conduct deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial by jury.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted under state law and thus unreviewable in federal habeas corpus proceedings without a showing of cause and prejudice.