Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Criminal Law & Procedure : From 10/01/03 To 07/01/04
Number of summaries found: 32
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam |
| Title: | HOLLAND v. JACKSON |
| Date: | 06/28/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-1200 |
| Summary: | Concerning a habeas petition, the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the state court's application of Strickland was unreasonable on evidence not properly before the state court, and in finding that the district court wrongly assessed prejudice under a preponderance standard, rather than a reasonable probability standard. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence |
| Title: | US v. PATANE |
| Date: | 06/28/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1183 |
| Summary: | Failure to give as suspect full Miranda warnings does not require the suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned, voluntary statements. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence |
| Title: | MISSOURI v. SEIBERT |
| Date: | 06/28/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1371 |
| Summary: | Where an officer intentionally withheld Miranda warnings, obtained a confession, then issued Miranda warnings and elicited a second confession, the court found that both confessions were inadmissible as violating the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | RUMSFELD v. PADILLA |
| Date: | 06/28/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-1027 |
| Summary: | The Court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's habeas petition, because the U. S. Secretary of Defense, against whom the petition was brought, was not the immediate custodian of plaintiff's "person", and therefore was not the proper respondent. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | BEARD v. BANKS |
| Date: | 06/24/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1603 |
| Summary: | Concerning a capital prisoner's habeas petition, the Court found its decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, announced a new rule of constitutional law which did not fall under the Teague exception, and therefore could not be applied retroactively by the habeas petitioner. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | SCHRIRO v. SUMMERLIN |
| Date: | 06/24/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-526 |
| Summary: | The rule set out by the Court in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 548, requiring the existence of an aggravating factor to be proved to the jury rather than a judge, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review, because it was not a "watershed rule of criminal procedure." |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | BLAKELY v. WASHINGTON |
| Date: | 06/24/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1632 |
| Summary: | Because the facts supporting the defendant's exceptionally harsh sentence were neither admitted by the defendant, nor found by a jury, the sentence violated defendant's Sixth amendment right to trial by jury. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence |
| Title: | TENNARD v. DRETKE |
| Date: | 06/24/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-10038 |
| Summary: | In a capital murder case involving a defendant with an IQ of 67, a COA should have issued, because a reasonable jurist could have found the district court's assessment of constitutional claims, relating to defendant's low IQ, debatable or wrong. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | PLILER v. FORD |
| Date: | 06/21/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-221 |
| Summary: | A district court is not required to warn a pro se plaintiff bringing a habeas petition that it could not consider motions to stay unless plaintiff dismissed unexhausted claims, or that if he chose to dismiss the claims, they would be time-barred if raised in the future. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure |
| Title: | HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEVADA |
| Date: | 06/21/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-5554 |
| Summary: | Defendant's conviction for failing to identify himself while detained by a police officer under suspicious circumstances in violation of a state "stop and identify" statute did not violate the Fourth, or Fifth Amendments. |