159 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 552 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
701 F.2d 1150·
6th Cir.·
1983-03-08
·cited 8×
The court held that the state's acquisition and use of a defendant's confidential statement prepared for his attorney violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and this violation was not harmless error.
-
696 F.2d 1244·
9th Cir.·
1983-01-20
·cited 8×
The court held that the pretrial photographic identification procedures used were so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating the defendant's due process rights.
-
The court held that the Georgia 'fighting words' statute is not facially unconstitutional, but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether it was unconstitutionally applied.
-
The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and the Louisiana conviction was not void.
-
666 F.2d 329·
8th Cir.·
1981-12-16
·cited 8×
-
653 F.2d 1234·
8th Cir.·
1981-07-20
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
-
The federal district court did not err in denying the habeas petition without an independent evidentiary hearing, as the state habeas hearing was full and fair.
-
The court held that the petitioner deliberately bypassed available state court remedies by failing to raise his intoxication claim at trial or on direct appeal, thus forfeiting his right to federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court convictions.
-
252 F.2d 807·
2d Cir.·
1958-02-20
·cited 8×
The Court held that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to obtain and examine the state trial record before conducting a de novo hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding.
-
968 F.2d 835·
9th Cir.·
1992-06-24
·cited 7×
The court held that the majority's distinction between de jure and de facto guilty pleas, focusing on labels rather than substance, is flawed and undermines constitutional protections.
-
The court held that the state court's identification procedure was not so suggestive as to violate due process and affirmed the denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, but remanded for further examination of sentencing issues.
-
A guilty plea induced by the fear of a heavier sentence if a jury trial is chosen, or by the perceived leniency of a judge in a non-jury trial, does not render the plea involuntary or unconstitutional, provided it is made intelligently and with competent legal advice.
-
700 F.2d 1164·
8th Cir.·
1983-01-10
·cited 7×
The court denied the petition for rehearing, adhering to its prior ruling that the State must prove a lack of bad faith to invoke the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.
-
The Court of Appeals did not err in its application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and the issue decided by the Supreme Court was not raised by the parties below.
-
973 F.2d 1175·
5th Cir.·
1992-09-17
·cited 6×
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is not entitled to relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural default, insufficient evidence, or improper use of evidence, as these claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or were based on
-
The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
-
956 F.2d 76·
5th Cir.·
1992-03-03
·cited 6×
The court held that a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence must demonstrate that a constitutional violation prevented them from presenting this evidence earlier, and that claims not raised in the first federal habeas peti
-
The court held that the conviction for rape was not fundamentally unfair despite a variance between the charge and the jury instruction, as the evidence supported guilt under either method defined by the statute.
-
A confession is not rendered involuntary by a misunderstanding of collateral consequences or the silence of an officer regarding charges outside the scope of a non-prosecution agreement.
-
The court held that the majority opinion created an erroneous rule of constitutional law by presuming juror bias based on past abuse and alleged dishonesty, rather than requiring proof of fixed opinions preventing impartial judgment.
-
The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
-
The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the admission of Purvis's confession violated Miranda, either due to custody issues or the improper admission of details obtained after custody began.
-
920 F.2d 510·
8th Cir.·
1990-12-03
·cited 6×
The court held that the confinement prior to trial did not interfere with the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or obtain counsel, and that his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.
-
912 F.2d 1217·
10th Cir.·
1990-08-28
·cited 6×
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the petitioner's claims regarding competency and fair trial were previously litigated and that newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant relief.
-
892 F.2d 1142·
3d Cir.·
1989-12-27
·cited 6×
The court held that the 1974 convictions, obtained without a required juvenile certification hearing, were constitutionally infirm and should not have been considered in sentencing for the 1979 conviction.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for habeas corpus relief, as the state courts' factual findings were supported by the record and the petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice from alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, o
-
The court held that while the state court's implicit finding of a voluntary Miranda waiver is entitled to deference, a remand is necessary for an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of the confession itself due to insufficient record evidence.
-
The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated by the prosecution's conduct regarding a key witness or by the sufficiency of the evidence against petitioner Doherty.
-
The court held that the state courts' findings that the petitioner contemplated the use of lethal force and voluntarily participated in the robbery and murders were supported by the record and satisfied the Enmund standard, thus allowing the imposition of the death penalty.
-
The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability and the testimony lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.
-
769 F.2d 402·
7th Cir.·
1985-07-29
·cited 6×
The court held that the prosecutor's elicitation of improper testimony, even if careless or reckless, did not impermissibly influence the jury's determination of guilt, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
-
-
747 F.2d 1046·
6th Cir.·
1984-10-22
·cited 6×
The court held that a guilty plea is not rendered involuntary merely because it was entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty, and the judge's explanation of potential consequences does not constitute coercion if it is a fair description of alternatives.
-
The court held that the state court's findings of fact were presumed correct and supported by the record, and that the petitioner's claims regarding witness testimony reliability and ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
-
The trial court's denial of the defendant's request for substitute counsel, made due to an irreconcilable conflict and ineffective representation, deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
727 F.2d 1387·
5th Cir.·
1984-03-26
·cited 6×
The court held that while the state trial court erred by not holding a hearing on the voluntariness of the incriminating statement, the error was harmless because the record supported the statement's voluntariness and there was no evidence of coercion.
-
The court held that the undisclosed exculpatory evidence, even if considered, would not have affected the outcome of the trial, and thus affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the petitioner's thirty-two month delay between charge and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
-
688 F.2d 1181·
7th Cir.·
1982-09-24
·cited 6×
The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
673 F.2d 232·
8th Cir.·
1982-03-15
·cited 6×
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no demonstrated prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to investigate a rumor.
-
654 F.2d 707·
10th Cir.·
1981-07-22
·cited 6×
The court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to secure the witness's presence at trial, thus violating the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the state court findings were entitled to a presumption of correctness and were supported by the record.
-
The court would reverse the district court's finding because the state court's fact-finding, on the same record, is entitled to a presumption of correctness and there is no substantial evidence to support the district court's contrary finding.
-
524 F.2d 147·
2d Cir.·
1975-09-25
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without providing transcripts, as the petitioner had prior access and failed to demonstrate a need or new supporting evidence.
-
512 F.2d 860·
10th Cir.·
1975-03-18
·cited 6×
The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the confession obtained in Mexico, as the state court's determination of voluntariness was presumed correct and the Miranda warnings, though imperfect, were a good faith effort under the circumstances
-
The court held that the inmate's confinement in prison, despite sexual assaults, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
-
The court held that the federal district court properly denied Garcia's habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief.