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 the defendant's Penry claim was not procedurally barred, but that it lacked factual support. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not required for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the request for a certificate of probable
-
A district court has discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case, even if not strictly required, and this discretion was erroneously believed to be absent by the lower court.
-
981 F.2d 473·
10th Cir.·
1992-12-16
·cited 2×
The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
-
The court held that Jernigan failed to demonstrate that any errors by his counsel or the trial judge prejudiced his trial, and thus he is not entitled to habeas relief.
-
The district court erred in relying on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to uphold the state court's competency finding, as material facts were not adequately developed in state court.
-
The court held that the district court correctly granted a writ of habeas corpus because the burglary of jurors during deliberations created circumstances justifying a presumption of implied bias, violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief.
-
The court held that the exclusion of the victim's statement did not deprive the defendant of constitutional rights, and the defendant waived his claim regarding impeachment with a prior conviction by not testifying.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Richard Gilley's conviction for marijuana possession because the state failed to establish an affirmative link between him and the contraband.
-
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate crucial physical evidence, specifically a quilt with gunshot residue, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. This failure prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and right to a fair trial were not violated by a juror's nondisclosure of a past trauma or by prosecutorial remarks.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations lacked merit, and that procedural default barred one claim.
-
978 F.2d 1502·
9th Cir.·
1992-04-01
·cited 2×
A defendant's right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial, including jury selection, can be knowingly and voluntarily waived, even in a capital case, as long as it does not implicate Confrontation Clause issues.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was not rendered involuntary by the state's retraction of pretrial detention credit, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged misinformation or omission.
-
The court held that brief, isolated, and substantially correct comments about parole by jurors, even if violating state law, do not necessarily rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation warranting habeas relief.
-
946 F.2d 247·
3d Cir.·
1991-10-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in relying on state court findings for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as the underlying facts were supported by the record and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of correctness.
-
947 F.2d 1106·
4th Cir.·
1991-10-01
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the denial of the petition or the underlying state court judgment.
-
The court held that the state trial court's fact-finding procedure afforded the defendant a full and fair hearing, and the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the systematic exclusion of women from jury service violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, entitling the appellant to relief.
-
The court held that the confession was not involuntary and affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of state court findings.
-
921 F.2d 260·
10th Cir.·
1990-12-10
·cited 2×
The court held that defense counsel's strategy of pursuing jury nullification instead of an entrapment defense, despite evidence supporting it, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and the new evidence presented satisfied the prejudice prong for habeas relief.
-
The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
-
904 F.2d 889·
4th Cir.·
1990-05-24
·cited 2×
A defendant seeking due process relief for preindictment delay must prove actual prejudice, after which the court balances the prejudice against the government's justification for the delay.
-
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Roberson, which prohibited further interrogation after a suspect invokes the right to counsel, announced a "new rule" and therefore does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review where the conviction was f
-
The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination about the defendant's characterization of the incident did not violate Doyle v. Ohio because the defendant had made post-arrest statements about the event, and the questioning sought an explanation for an arguably inconsisten
-
903 F.2d 534·
8th Cir.·
1990-05-09
·cited 2×
The court held that a defendant in state court can validly waive their Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel without an on-the-record inquiry, provided the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or unsupported by the record, and thus denied his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
-
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 complaints, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately identify the officers responsible for his alleged unlawful extradition and that his claim regarding presentence jail time was barred by a prior state court
-
850 F.2d 437·
8th Cir.·
1988-06-28
·cited 2×
The court held that a new trial requires demonstrating that a juror failed to honestly answer a material question on voir dire and that a correct answer would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause.
-
836 F.2d 406·
8th Cir.·
1988-02-17
·cited 2×
A confession is voluntary if obtained in a manner compatible with constitutional requirements, considering the totality of the circumstances, even if the defendant has diminished mental capacity, as long as there is no evidence of state coercion.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus application because the appellant's guilty pleas were voluntary and his sentences did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
-
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling him to relief.
-
The court held that the state court's factual finding that the petitioner was aware of the maximum sentence was entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and was not overcome by the evidence presented.
-
The court held that the juvenile court's reliance on facts and information not formally introduced into evidence at a transfer hearing did not violate the petitioner's federal due process rights, as the state court had found all relevant criteria were considered.
-
The court denied the appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and dismissed the appeal.
-
The court held that denying an indigent defendant's statutory right to appeal solely because his family could afford trial counsel violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
A federal court granting a writ of habeas corpus must explain why the statutory presumption of correctness of state court findings does not apply. The district court's order granting the writ is vacated and remanded for specific findings.
-
733 F.2d 1133·
5th Cir.·
1984-06-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness, due process violation regarding prior conviction evidence, and improper testimony by former jurors lacked merit or were not properly preserved for appeal.
-
722 F.2d 187·
5th Cir.·
1984-01-03
·cited 2×
The federal court must defer to state court findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but may independently review conclusions of law regarding confession voluntariness.
-
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of Royal's claims without prejudice, but the concurring judge disagreed with the majority's reasoning on exhaustion of state remedies.
-
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the application for a stay of execution, finding no constitutional violations in the petitioner's conviction or sentence.
-
The court, in dissent, argues that the denial of rehearing en banc was improper because the lower court's reasoning regarding the non-disclosure of witness inducements and exculpatory statements violated due process principles.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the appellant was not a parolee and the state board's conditions were lawful.
-
506 F.2d 478·
8th Cir.·
1974-03-28
·cited 2×
The court held that not all material facts were adequately developed at the state court hearing, requiring an evidentiary hearing in the district court.
-
471 F.2d 1249·
6th Cir.·
1973-01-19
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant failed to carry his burden of proving his statements were involuntary or that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel at the preliminary examination.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not deprived of his right to counsel at misdemeanor trials or probation revocation hearings, and that prior decisions regarding probation revocation hearings did not apply or were not violated.
-
The failure of retained counsel to perfect an appeal within the statutory time, absent a showing of indigency at the time the appeal was due, does not constitute grounds for discharge on habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous, affirming the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.