159 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 552 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The dissenting judge holds that the defendant's statements were voluntary and admissible, distinguishing the case from Edwards v. Arizona.
-
A guilty plea, entered with advice of counsel, breaks the chain of prior constitutional violations, and federal habeas relief is limited to the voluntariness and knowing character of the plea itself.
-
Federal courts cannot summarily dismiss state prisoner habeas corpus petitions based solely on state court findings without an evidentiary hearing if material issues of fact are raised.
-
749 F.2d 678·
11th Cir.·
1985-01-02
·cited 19×
The court held that while state delays can excuse the exhaustion requirement, the circumstances here do not warrant excusing it, but the district court should allow the petitioner to choose whether to proceed in state court without his presence.
-
The court held that the repeated interrogations of the petitioner did not violate his Miranda rights because the police scrupulously honored his right to cut off questioning.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner's claims regarding ex parte jury communication, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit or based on frivolous allegations.
-
941 F.2d 631·
8th Cir.·
1991-07-22
·cited 18×
The court held that the district court did not err in barring claims not raised in state court or in denying Schlup's remaining claim on its merits, and that an evidentiary hearing was not required.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not denied a fair trial or a public trial, and affirmed the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the district court properly entertained the habeas petition but must reconsider the substantive claims, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the majority erred in treating the voluntariness of a confession as a question of fact, thereby deferring to state court findings, when Supreme Court precedent establishes it as a mixed question of law and fact requiring independent federal review.
-
The court did not issue a holding in this excerpt, as it is a concurring and dissenting opinion and an order for rehearing en banc.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the repeal of a statute concerning sentence commutation did not violate the ex post facto clause.
-
709 F.2d 1004·
5th Cir.·
1983-07-22
·cited 18×
The majority erred by failing to give sufficient deference to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' findings regarding the jury charge and prosecutor's argument.
-
The dissenting judge holds that the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel and right to remain silent, and his statements were not involuntary.
-
The court granted the certificate of probable cause to appeal, finding the issue debatable among jurists of reason, but ultimately affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, holding the state court's 'paper hearing' was adequate for § 2254(d) presumption of correctness.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied Bae's habeas corpus petition, affirming the state court's admission of his confession and rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
-
The court held that most of the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred under Teague v. Lane and state law, and the remaining claims lacked merit.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that the petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.
-
The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses reservations about applying the contemporaneous objection rule to claims that have been revived by Supreme Court certiorari, suggesting that such claims should be reviewed on their merits.
-
864 F.2d 577·
7th Cir.·
1989-01-11
·cited 16×
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached but was validly waived. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The dissenting judge would hold that the defendant's statements did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel, and therefore the confession should not be suppressed.
-
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 the defendant failed to demonstrate constitutional errors in the photographic identification procedure, juror nondisclosure, or prosecutor's cross-examination that would warrant overturning his conviction.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to prove federal constitutional infirmities in his trial, affirming the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
-
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.
-
743 F.2d 299·
5th Cir.·
1984-10-09
·cited 16×
The court held that the defendant's Miranda warnings were adequately explained and that the jury deliberations, despite brief discussions of parole and a juror's personal experience, did not deprive him of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, despite the interrogating officers not asking specific questions about his desire for counsel to be present.
-
691 F.2d 796·
5th Cir.·
1982-11-18
·cited 16×
The court held that the petitioner's claims did not raise disputed issues of material fact and affirmed the district court's dismissal, treating it as a grant of summary judgment.
-
The majority opinion orders a remand for a new evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of statements made by petitioners after arrest, finding the state court's factual determination on voluntariness was not entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. §
-
686 F.2d 374·
6th Cir.·
1982-07-07
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing, as the fragmented record required further fact-finding on the speedy trial claim. The 11.5-month delay for a simple robbery was presumptively prejudicial.
-
677 F.2d 841·
11th Cir.·
1982-06-04
·cited 16×
The court held that a jury instruction creating a presumption of intent, while potentially erroneous for murder, was harmless error for a voluntary manslaughter conviction because intent is not a required element. The court also held that the trial court's ruling did not improper
-
The court granted the petitioner's motion to stay the execution of his death sentence pending appeal.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing when the state disputed material facts regarding the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that a 1976 statute retroactively validated a magistrate's evidentiary hearing, and the state court's findings were not entitled to a presumption of correctness due to insufficient written indicia.
-
A custodial statement made after complete Miranda warnings is not rendered involuntary solely because it was preceded by an unwarned or inadequately warned statement.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional infirmity in the petitioner's conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court record adequately demonstrated the voluntariness of the appellant's statements.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition without a hearing, as the state court's findings did not clearly establish whether the petitioner was informed of his right to appointed appellate counsel or the 30-day time limit for appeal.
-
A federal district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition if the state court previously conducted a full and fair hearing on the issue.
-
A federal court may not presume the correctness of state court factual findings unless they are written findings from the trial court, not merely statements in an appellate opinion.
-
409 F.2d 21·
6th Cir.·
1969-04-15
·cited 16×
The court held that a federal district court must have the complete state court record, including a transcript of testimony, to determine if a state court provided a full and fair evidentiary hearing before deferring to its findings of fact in a habeas corpus proceeding.
-
The court held that a federal court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing if the state trial court provided a full and fair hearing and the record supports the federal court's findings.
-
271 F.2d 364·
2d Cir.·
1959-10-28
·cited 16×
The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should not be bound by state court findings of fact when reviewing the voluntariness of confessions, especially given coercive police tactics.
-
875 F.2d 205·
8th Cir.·
1989-05-24
·cited 15×
The court held that defense counsel's decisions regarding interviewing a potential witness and subpoenaing officers were strategic and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, nor did they prejudice the appellant.
-
The court held that the defendant's confessions were voluntary and his life sentences under the Alabama Habitual Offender Act were not disproportionate, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
816 F.2d 564·
11th Cir.·
1987-04-02
·cited 15×
The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's competency to stand trial, as the defendant presented sufficient evidence to raise a legitimate doubt.
-
The court held that prosecutorial cross-examination and argument regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence, when not used for impeachment of prior inconsistent statements, violates due process and is not harmless error in a case hinging on the defendant's credibility.
-
The court held that a writ of prohibition is not warranted to prevent a district court from conducting an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding.
-
The court held that the defendant's statement was a request for clarification, not an invocation of his right to counsel, and that even if it were, his subsequent statements reinitiated interrogation and constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights.
-
892 F.2d 1205·
5th Cir.·
1989-12-08
·cited 14×
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, agreeing that the issue was procedurally barred and that the venireman's exclusion was proper on the merits.