159 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 552 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
415 F.2d 278·
9th Cir.·
1969-08-14
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas application based on prior proceedings because those proceedings lacked an evidentiary hearing on the merits. The court also noted a substantial new issue regarding denial of counsel that could warrant relief.
-
923 F.2d 588·
8th Cir.·
1991-01-10
·cited 5×
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or without merit, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The dissenting opinion argues that the state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on first-degree (felony) murder in a capital case violated due process and equal protection. This refusal stemmed from an inconsistent and arbitrary application of Missouri law by the state ap
-
The court held that the trial court erred by precluding mitigating evidence regarding Petitioner's drug and alcohol abuse and cousin's dominance, violating the Eighth Amendment, and granted a new sentencing hearing on that claim.
-
822 F.2d 1027·
11th Cir.·
1987-07-27
·cited 5×
The court held that the nine-month delay between arrest and trial, absent prejudice, did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
-
735 F.2d 735·
2d Cir.·
1984-05-25
·cited 5×
The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel nor a fair trial, and that the district court correctly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that a district court cannot dismiss a habeas corpus petition without examining the trial record, especially when factual disputes are raised regarding evidence admissibility and discovery.
-
The Court found that the Petitioner's waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing and intelligent due to his severe intellectual deficits, and therefore his confession should have been suppressed.
-
The court held that the Texas capital sentencing scheme, including its special issues, is constitutional and that the district court properly deferred to state court findings of fact. The court also found no unconstitutional deprivation of mental health expert assistance.
-
The court held that the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to strike black venirepersons violated the petitioner's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
989 F.2d 1021·
9th Cir.·
1993-03-02
·cited 4×
The Ninth Circuit granted a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding that the district court erred in denying standing to a "next friend" petition for habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the trial judge's televised remarks did not demonstrate inadequate state court factfinding procedures or warrant relief under Rule 60(b).
-
The court denied the defendant's request for a stay of execution and a certificate of probable cause to appeal, finding he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right or a substantial case on the merits.
-
957 F.2d 1048·
2d Cir.·
1992-02-26
·cited 4×
The district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact regarding the effect of the Yamin letter on the petitioner's guilty plea.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to use exculpatory forensic evidence without an evidentiary hearing, and remanded that claim for further proceedings. Other claims of ineffective assistan
-
The court held that the state trial court violated due process by permitting the defendant to withdraw his competency motion without an adequate evidentiary hearing, despite evidence raising sufficient doubt about his mental competency.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to show prejudice from his counsel's failure to recall the victim, as her testimony would have been damaging to his defense.
-
The court held that the defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent and that prosecutorial misconduct during summation did not cause substantial prejudice, nor was the jury charge on mistake of fact attempt improper.
-
The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence and the state investigator's involvement in defense expert testing did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the district court properly applied the presumption of correctness to state court findings and that the petitioner's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and he received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact and by applying an improper standard of prejudice. The court found the state court's factual determinations were supported by the record and that the defendant failed to demon
-
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the motion for a stay of execution, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of error.
-
The court held that state courts did resolve the merits of the factual dispute regarding jury discrimination by finding the evidence unsubstantiated, thus the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) should apply.
-
The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the jailhouse informant was not a government agent acting to deliberately elicit incriminating statements.
-
Any error in admitting the lineup identification and the defendant's incriminating statements for impeachment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
811 F.2d 952·
6th Cir.·
1987-02-11
·cited 4×
The dissenting judge would deny the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to prejudice, rather than insufficient evidence, does not bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
-
The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated during his state court conviction, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that a habeas petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to external constraints must still demonstrate actual prejudice, and that state court factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness.
-
768 F.2d 69·
3d Cir.·
1985-07-16
·cited 4×
The court held that a federal court is bound by the presumption of correctness of state court factual findings, and that a state appellate court's reliance on a trial judge's post-trial opinion to clarify the basis for denying a jury trial waiver does not constitute a denial of f
-
The court held that a state court's factual finding regarding a habeas petitioner's understanding of potential punishment is presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and an erroneous statement by the sentencing judge does not invalidate a guilty plea if the petitioner was othe
-
The court held that the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for compelling the defendant to wear manacles during trial violated his due process rights, and this error was not harmless.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied habeas corpus relief, as the state court's findings on mental fitness and impartiality of the jury were entitled to deference.
-
The court held that the state trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever offenses and that the in-court identification was admissible.
-
The federal district court and its magistrate failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by relying on an informal investigatory hearing rather than a formal, adversarial evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty pleas were voluntary and that the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing.
-
565 F.2d 529·
8th Cir.·
1977-11-16
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not err in applying the presumption of correctness to the state court's finding that the confession was voluntary, and that petitioner failed to present convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
-
The court held that the petitioner's arrest and the subsequent search were based on probable cause, and federal habeas corpus review is available for constitutional claims.
-
The court held that the federal district court erred in dismissing the claim regarding the jury instruction on failure to testify for failure to exhaust state remedies, but that the instruction and any alleged prosecutorial comment were not constitutional violations or were harml
-
The court held that a guilty plea entered voluntarily and understandingly waives all prior non-jurisdictional defects, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
-
415 F.2d 779·
3d Cir.·
1969-08-11
·cited 4×
The court held that the relator's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were violated when police obtained consent to search his apartment after he had requested counsel at a preliminary hearing.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, finding that the relator's due process claim was already decided.
-
378 F.2d 344·
10th Cir.·
1967-02-13
·cited 4×
The federal district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition because the appellant failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to the state court's factual determination regarding the confession.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and the petition for writ of habeas corpus would be denied.
-
The court denied Petitioner Martin E. Grossman's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
703 F. Supp. 916·
M.D. Fla.·
1988-12-23
·cited 3×
The court held that a claim not fairly presented to state courts, even if the state waives the exhaustion defense, may be dismissed if it requires judicial findings of fact and would violate comity and federalism principles.
-
The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when a defendant is punished for two distinct offenses, as determined by the statutes upon which the defendant was indicted and the Blockburger test, not by jury instructions that may have introduced other statutory p
-
Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation based primarily on testimony from Willie Junior, a co-conspirator who received a favorable plea agreement in exchange for cooperation. The trial court prohibited Childers from cross-examining Junior about the E
-
The court held that the state court's adjudication of Petitioner's claim regarding the pocketknife as a deadly weapon was not contrary to federal law and was based on a reasonable determination of the facts.