159 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 552 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that while prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the sentencing phase, it did not render the guilt phase fundamentally unfair. However, the misconduct during sentencing was so prejudicial that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.
-
The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
-
479 F.2d 446·
5th Cir.·
1973-05-29
·cited 32×
The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
-
840 F.2d 893·
11th Cir.·
1988-03-25
·cited 31×
The court held that the standard of review for the district court's conclusion on identification procedure suggestiveness is 'clearly erroneous'.
-
A guilty plea is valid if entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, even if the state trial judge fails to explain all elements or lesser included offenses, provided the defendant understood the charge and consequences.
-
733 F.2d 304·
4th Cir.·
1984-04-26
·cited 31×
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no merit in claims of judicial bias, improper denial of an evidentiary hearing, or invalidity of the guilty plea.
-
The federal court erred in granting habeas corpus relief because it failed to give presumptive weight to the state court's factual findings, and the petitioner did not provide convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
-
The court held that the facts relevant to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim were not adequately developed in state court, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
-
895 F.2d 520·
9th Cir.·
1990-01-19
·cited 28×
A juror's prior professional experience counseling a rape victim, without more, does not create implied bias sufficient to warrant a new trial, especially when the state courts found no actual bias and the juror testified to impartiality.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective, and that the indictment was sufficient and the confession claim was unsupported.
-
The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his claims regarding competency, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, trial court bias, and jury selection lack merit or are unexhausted.
-
750 F.2d 494·
5th Cir.·
1985-01-17
·cited 28×
The court held that an incomplete trial transcript did not deny a meaningful appeal and that the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.
-
-
The court held that the state prisoner was not barred from federal habeas relief because the state courts denied his self-representation claim on the merits, not on a procedural default, and that the right to self-representation existed at the time of his trial, with his conduct
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that his confession and guilty plea were involuntary, thus affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
814 F.2d 1151·
7th Cir.·
1987-02-26
·cited 27×
The court held that even if pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive, the subsequent trial identifications were sufficiently reliable under the totality of the circumstances to satisfy due process requirements.
-
The court held that the Murphy deposition should be added to the record on appeal, but the Cole deposition should not. The court remanded the issue of the 1984 affidavits to the district court to determine if the failure to present them earlier was inexcusable neglect.
-
The court held that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive and that the admission of the defendant's statements to Detective Lombardo did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because he validly waived that right.
-
A federal habeas court is not required to sua sponte obtain state court record exhibits if the petitioner has not produced them or demonstrated an inability to do so.
-
884 F.2d 945·
7th Cir.·
1989-09-18
·cited 26×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial.
-
742 F.2d 371·
7th Cir.·
1984-08-23
·cited 26×
A lawyer is not required to advise a client of every theoretically possible but practically hopeless defense, and failure to do so does not render a guilty plea involuntary or constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if prejudice cannot be shown.
-
-
The court held that the defendant may have been deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to investigate and present critical evidence regarding the prosecution's key witness's mental condition.
-
The court held that the Miranda warning given was constitutionally adequate and the petitioner's statement was voluntarily made, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas petition.
-
903 F.2d 526·
7th Cir.·
1990-06-05
·cited 24×
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that the admission of his statements did not violate Miranda, affirming the denial of his habeas petition.
-
The court held that the state trial court did not violate Case's constitutional rights by refusing to conduct a post-verdict voir dire of the jury based on equivocal allegations of misconduct. The court also held that the denial of a continuance for a witness whose testimony was
-
849 F.2d 403·
9th Cir.·
1988-06-13
·cited 24×
The court held that a deputy sheriff's statement to two jurors that the defendant had "done something like this before" created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, requiring reversal of the habeas corpus denial.
-
802 F.2d 1203·
10th Cir.·
1986-09-29
·cited 24×
The court held that considering the suffering of a surviving victim is a constitutionally permissible way to determine if a murder was 'especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel.'
-
706 F.2d 1534·
11th Cir.·
1983-06-13
·cited 24×
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding petitioner's claims without merit, but remanded to the district court to consider the effects of a pending Supreme Court decision.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from alleged trial counsel errors, and therefore, his petition for habeas corpus relief was correctly denied.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner's claims of newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a chilled right to testify were without merit or unexhausted.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief, as the petitioner's guilty pleas were voluntary and knowingly entered, and the state court proceedings were adequate.
-
The court held that the defendant's claims of present insanity and discriminatory application of the death penalty statute were insufficient to warrant a certificate of probable cause or a stay of execution.
-
899 F.2d 1104·
11th Cir.·
1990-04-30
·cited 22×
The court held that a suspect's question to an officer about whether he should get a lawyer constitutes an equivocal request for counsel, requiring further questioning to cease until the request is clarified.
-
The court held that the jury's finding of agency as an aggravating factor was permissible and that even if one aggravating factor was invalid, the death sentence could still stand. The court also found no constitutional error in the jury selection or the admission of evidence of
-
The majority found that Sandstrom's federal constitutional claim regarding judicial disqualification was exhausted in state courts, but the dissenting judge disagreed.
-
724 F.2d 525·
6th Cir.·
1984-01-06
·cited 22×
The court held that a jury instruction referencing felony murder for explanatory purposes, without directing the jury to consider it as a basis for conviction, did not amend the indictment and therefore did not raise a double jeopardy issue.
-
The court held that the post-trial evidence of the petitioner's alleged incompetency did not retroactively render his trial unfair, and thus, the trial court was not constitutionally required to hold a post-trial competency hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioner's video-taped statement was admissible because he initiated further communication with the police after invoking his right to counsel and knowingly and intelligently waived that right.
-
A state court evidentiary hearing is not fair when the judge who presided over the original plea also acts as the trier of fact, relying on his own recollection of events that are disputed by the petitioner and cannot be cross-examined.
-
The admission of Germany's incriminating statement was harmless error, and the state court's factual findings regarding the compulsory process claim are presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
The court held that the Texas capital sentencing statute, as applied, did not unconstitutionally prevent the jury from considering mitigating evidence, and that Barnard's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because there was no evidence of coercive police activity, which is a necessary predicate for finding a confession involuntary under the Due Process Clause.
-
The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, affirming the denial of federal habeas relief.
-
The court held that the state courts' refusal to interview a juror, based on a weak showing of potential bias, did not violate due process, and thus federal habeas relief was inappropriate.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's motion for a certificate of probable cause can serve as a timely notice of appeal, and that the district court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing when state court findings were not impeached.
-
A district court's issuance of a limited certificate of probable cause does not restrict the appellate court's review to only those issues stated in the certificate. The appellate court must address all issues raised by the petitioner.
-
The court held that a state trial court's denial of a continuance, which resulted in the defendant proceeding to trial without counsel, did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a lack of fair opportunity to secure counsel and the denial was
-
The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause, finding the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the petitioner, as the state record, despite the lack of a verbatim transcript, sufficiently demonstrated the voluntary and knowing waiver of constitutional rights.