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 the presumption of prejudice from third-party jury contact, established in Remmer v. United States, does not extend to the sentencing phase of a bifurcated trial.
-
The court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
-
416 So. 2d 470·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1982-04-30
·cited 14×
-
A jury instruction that allows a defendant's intent to kill to be attributed to an accomplice, rather than requiring proof of the defendant's own intent, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that federal courts should not intervene in child custody disputes, claims were barred by res judicata, and judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment protected state officials and agencies.
-
The court held that the federal habeas review standard for a state court jury's competency verdict is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude the evidence does not predominate in favor of incompetence, viewing evidence favorably to the verdict.
-
671 F.2d 713·
2d Cir.·
1982-02-03
·cited 14×
The court held that the prosecution did not violate due process by failing to disclose post-testimony efforts to secure leniency for a witness, as these actions did not affect the witness's credibility at the time of testimony.
-
The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause, despite allegations of false statements in the affidavit, because sufficient corroborating information remained even if the challenged statements were disregarded.
-
665 F.2d 113·
7th Cir.·
1981-11-10
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as factual questions regarding potential Sixth Amendment violations due to conflicts of interest in joint representation require further development.
-
The court held that a state prisoner's failure to object to a constitutionally infirm jury instruction at trial or on direct appeal is excused by cause and prejudice, allowing federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of competency was based on inadequate evaluations, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the petitioners' habeas corpus claims were procedurally barred by New Hampshire's contemporaneous objection rule, as they failed to show cause for noncompliance and prejudice.
-
The court held that the pretrial photographic identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, violating due process, and that this mixed question of law and fact is reviewable on habeas corpus.
-
646 F.2d 1146·
6th Cir.·
1981-04-02
·cited 14×
The court held that the Kentucky Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal was arbitrary and capricious, constituting a denial of due process.
-
The court held that the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive and did not violate due process, and therefore habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
-
Failure to comply with state procedural rules does not, in itself, raise a federal constitutional question cognizable in federal habeas corpus. A mixed petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed without prejudice.
-
The court held that while some jury instructions were imperfect, they did not rise to the level of constitutional error that would deprive the petitioner of due process or the right to be convicted only under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found n
-
635 F.2d 584·
7th Cir.·
1980-11-07
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas relief without independently examining the entire state court record to determine the materiality of the undisclosed witness agreement.
-
An adversary judicial criminal proceeding does not commence until prosecuting authorities are aware of the arrest and have committed to prosecute, thus the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach before this point.
-
-
625 F.2d 35·
5th Cir.·
1980-08-27
·cited 14×
The court held that a writ of habeas corpus must issue because the petitioner did not receive effective assistance of counsel and an impermissibly suggestive photographic identification procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition, as the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and knowing, and other claims lacked merit.
-
624 F.2d 851·
8th Cir.·
1980-07-09
·cited 14×
The dissenting judge would remand the case to the district court for further inquiry into the petitioner's claims of new evidence suggesting his conviction may have been based on incorrect testimony.
-
629 F.2d 739·
2d Cir.·
1980-06-26
·cited 14×
The court held that the provisional arrest warrant issued under the extradition treaty was invalid because it was obtained without a showing of probable cause as required by the treaty and U.S. law.
-
383 So. 2d 1166·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1980-06-03
·cited 14×
Smith, an inmate, sought habeas corpus relief challenging his parole postponement by the Florida Parole & Probation Commission. The Commission postponed Smith's January 1980 parole release by twelve months based on the aggravating factor that his crime involved a firearm. The cou
-
384 So. 2d 692·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1980-05-27
·cited 14×
A juvenile detained on a manslaughter charge was held in custody beyond the statutory 48-hour detention hearing period without a valid written detention order complying with Florida law. The court granted a writ of habeas corpus, finding the trial court violated the Florida Juven
-
624 F.2d 415·
3d Cir.·
1980-05-22
·cited 14×
The majority reverses the district court's order, holding that the Bureau of Prisons is not bound to comply with the Federal Youth Corrections Act's segregation mandate for a youth offender who receives a consecutive adult sentence.
-
616 F.2d 801·
5th Cir.·
1980-05-07
·cited 14×
The court held that the petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to conflict-free counsel because the state failed to prove he understood the dangers of the conflict or his right to obtain other counsel.
-
Fasenmyer appeals his convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, grand larceny, and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. The appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial based on two trial court errors: admission of irrelevant testimony a
-
The court held that a suspect's waiver of the right to remain silent, after consulting with an attorney, can constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to have counsel present during interrogation.
-
614 F.2d 75·
5th Cir.·
1980-03-20
·cited 14×
The court held that correcting an illegal sentence, even if it results in a harsher term, does not violate double jeopardy principles.
-
617 F.2d 579·
10th Cir.·
1980-03-19
·cited 14×
The court held that the trial court erred by placing the burden of proof on the petitioner to show his guilty plea was involuntary, when the record was silent and the burden should have shifted to the government.
-
613 F.2d 487·
4th Cir.·
1980-01-02
·cited 14×
The court granted a stay of execution to allow for the expeditious pursuit of traditional post-conviction review in state and federal courts, as the legal issues had not yet been sufficiently litigated.
-
Ineffective assistance of counsel can be established if the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or if a state official knew or should have known of the deficient representation and failed to act.
-
604 F.2d 9·
5th Cir.·
1979-10-03
·cited 14×
A prior unsuccessful motion to vacate sentence under § 2255 is insufficient, on its own, to demonstrate the inadequacy of that remedy, thus precluding a § 2241 habeas corpus petition.
-
604 F.2d 1205·
9th Cir.·
1979-08-28
·cited 14×
The court held that the Parole Commission's denial of parole was not arbitrary or capricious, even when a judge made the prisoner eligible for early parole consideration.
-
-
592 F.2d 1018·
8th Cir.·
1979-02-22
·cited 14×
-
588 F.2d 336·
2d Cir.·
1978-11-17
·cited 14×
Extradition is not barred by the treaty's double jeopardy clause when the prior domestic offense and the extraditable offense are distinct, and foreign-seized evidence is admissible even if obtained in violation of U.S. law, unless the foreign conduct shocks the judicial conscien
-
585 F.2d 1163·
1st Cir.·
1978-11-07
·cited 14×
The court held that the appellant competently and intelligently waived his right to counsel and that the in-court identification was not constitutionally infirm.
-
579 F.2d 317·
5th Cir.·
1978-08-30
·cited 14×
The court held that the trial court's findings were unsatisfactory and that the defendant was not familiar with his appellate rights, which was the controlling fact.
-
580 F.2d 988·
9th Cir.·
1978-08-22
·cited 14×
A state is not constitutionally required to grant a probationer immunity from the use of testimony given at a combined probation revocation and deferred sentencing hearing when the probationer is under indictment for the same act.
-
The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for his claims regarding memory erasure and speedy trial, and that his conviction was not devoid of evidentiary support regarding sanity.
-
The court held that federal courts must first determine if a state prisoner had an opportunity to litigate Fourth Amendment claims in state court before considering the merits, and that the petitioner's allegations regarding the show-up required further inquiry.
-
577 F.2d 435·
8th Cir.·
1978-05-31
·cited 14×
The court held that the introduction of evidence of a prior acquittal was permissible because the robberies were separate offenses and the defendant invited the error by repeatedly referencing the prior trial and acquittal.
-
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
-
575 F.2d 481·
4th Cir.·
1978-05-18
·cited 14×
The denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed because the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate or dispose of a capital offense, thus the transfer hearing did not place the appellant in jeopardy.
-
-
The court held that the ten-month delay between the appellant's demand for a speedy trial and his trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
-
560 F.2d 303·
8th Cir.·
1977-06-13
·cited 14×
The Nebraska habitual criminal statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, even if infrequently applied, as the 'freakishness' rationale is limited to death penalty cases.