159 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 552 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
-
The Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor's conduct during the sentencing phase of the trial was constitutionally impermissible, rendering the sentencing fundamentally unfair, but the prosecutor's conduct during the guilt phase, while improper, was not unconstitutional. The C
-
The court's precedent on general deterrence evidence in capital penalty phases is contradictory and creates an unfair advantage for the prosecution.
-
Willie James Pye, convicted of murder, kidnapping, rape, and robbery, challenged his death sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during sentencing by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his difficul
-
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the appellant's claims were either procedurally barred or without merit.
-
-
The court held that the denial of a continuance to secure an alibi witness, a police officer, violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to compulsory process.
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the petitioner's representation was perfunctory and thus ineffective.
-
Raheem was convicted of two homicides and sentenced to death by a Georgia judge; he challenged his conviction and sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to fully investigate and present mitigating evidence of h
-
The court held that the trial court's refusal to grant a change of venue denied the petitioner due process of law.
-
Crosley Green, a state prisoner convicted of murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief challenging his convictions on constitutional grounds. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, finding t
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of an evidentiary hearing and the rejection of the petitioner's claims.
-
The court held that the trial court's failure to assess the potential prejudice from spectators wearing 'Women Against Rape' buttons, instead relying on a standard of imminent threat, was an incorrect legal standard, and thus a federal evidentiary hearing is required.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel and that the jury selection process was constitutional. Therefore, the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed.
-
863 F.2d 1377·
8th Cir.·
1988-12-20
·cited 56×
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on an erroneous legal test for ineffective assistance of counsel and an unsupported assessment of the evidence.
-
766 F.2d 1071·
7th Cir.·
1985-07-01
·cited 56×
The dissenting judge believes the petitioner failed to prove denial of effective assistance of counsel, and that state court findings of fact should be presumed correct.
-
715 F.2d 1459·
11th Cir.·
1983-09-09
·cited 55×
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding a Giglio violation, arbitrary application of the death penalty, and jury unconstitutionality were without merit or procedurally barred.
-
802 F.2d 1227·
10th Cir.·
1986-09-30
·cited 50×
The court held that the trial court properly excluded jurors opposed to the death penalty, the exclusion did not violate the cross-section requirement, and the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the petitioner's counsel at the sentencing proceeding was constitutionally deficient, and that counsel's errors resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage to the client's defense.
-
The court held that the statement made to Assistant State's Attorney Gainer was inadmissible as it was a mere relay of a coerced confession, and the state forfeited its harmless error argument. Statements made to Officer Dubois after Miranda warnings were admissible as they were
-
The court's opinion, which the author concurs with, applies de novo appellate review to the ultimate issue of confession voluntariness. However, the author argues this approach is incorrect.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, holding that a claim challenging a state judge's recusal in a collateral proceeding is not cognizable on federal habeas review. The court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel based on the trial
-
The court held that a guilty plea induced by threats against a third party is not an absolute bar to challenging the plea's voluntariness, and a remand for an evidentiary hearing is necessary if the state did not have probable cause for the threats.
-
The court held that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at any stage of the proceedings and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that Lusk failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's performance at any stage of the trial and that the Florida courts did not unconstitutionally apply the jury override standard. The denial of relief as to the conviction is affirmed, the grant of relief as to
-
-
604 F.2d 893·
5th Cir.·
1979-10-16
·cited 40×
The court held that a request for an attorney at arraignment does not automatically bar subsequent interrogation if the request was not made in a manner that effectively exercised the right to preclude any subsequent interrogation.
-
364 F.2d 45·
1st Cir.·
1966-07-11
·cited 40×
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus, finding that the consent to enter the room was valid and not coerced, thus the subsequent search was lawful.
-
The court held that the appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney's failure to move to suppress numerous confessions, and that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine if this failure constituted sound tria
-
728 F.2d 1181·
9th Cir.·
1983-10-14
·cited 39×
The majority erred by making contrary factual findings and failing to decide a ripe constitutional question, exceeding its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
The court held that even if a state trial court improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant regarding the independence of an in-court identification, a federal court on habeas review can still determine independence from the record if adequate, and if independent, no c
-
The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
-
The court held that trial counsel's failure to adequately investigate and present the defense of misidentification constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, violating the fourteenth amendment.
-
744 F.2d 1245·
6th Cir.·
1984-10-04
·cited 37×
A defendant is deprived of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when his attorney refuses to participate in the trial, even if this is a deliberate tactic, because such a tactic fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
-
The admission of a child victim's hearsay statements, made under the stress of excitement from a startling event, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if they possess sufficient indicia of reliability, even if the child is unavailable to testify.
-
The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.
-
784 F.2d 1434·
9th Cir.·
1986-03-19
·cited 35×
A guilty plea is involuntary if the defendant does not receive actual notice of the true nature of the charge against him or possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court proceedings regarding competency, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
-
570 F.2d 546·
5th Cir.·
1978-03-31
·cited 35×
The district court erred in denying habeas relief without an evidentiary hearing and in applying Habeas Corpus Rule 9(a) to a pre-1977 petition.
-
The court held that the district judge erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the Bruton rule, as the confessions of co-defendants interlocked and did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of the other habeas corpus claims.
-
The court held that a confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible if the taint of the arrest is sufficiently attenuated by intervening circumstances, and that a suspect's subjective belief of immunity, absent police misrepresentation, does not render a Miranda waive
-
The court held that the petitioner's counsel's belief about the limitations on mitigating evidence was reasonable at the time, and the petitioner was not denied an individualized sentencing hearing. The court also held that the death sentence was not imposed as punishment for ref
-
638 F.2d 979·
7th Cir.·
1980-12-10
·cited 34×
The court held that a defendant is denied due process when the state fails to correct false testimony, even if the defendant's counsel knew of the falsity and failed to correct it due to a conflict of interest. The court also held that the defendant was denied effective assistanc
-
728 F.2d 1384·
11th Cir.·
1984-04-02
·cited 33×
The court held that a federal district court must grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas applicant when the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing, and the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the alleged faking of footprint casts, as the state court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the failure to voluntarily disclose the victim's statement
-
953 F.2d 167·
5th Cir.·
1992-01-21
·cited 32×
-
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness regarding a jury instruction and the failure to present psychiatric testimony, and that his claim regarding prosecutorial discretion was procedurally barred.
-
The court held that the state court's finding of specific intent to kill was supported by the evidence and that Wingo's other constitutional claims lacked merit.
-
The court held that material facts pertaining to the petitioner's federal constitutional claim were not adequately developed in the state court, necessitating an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact.