Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Habeas Corpus : From 10/01/03 To 07/01/04
Number of summaries found: 16
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, Habeas Corpus, Military Law |
| Title: | HAMDI v. RUMSFELD |
| Date: | 06/28/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-6696 |
| Summary: | Where a U.S. citizen was detained for allegedly fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan as an enemy combatant, due process demands that he be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for his detention before a neutral decision maker. |
| 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: | 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, Habeas Corpus, Juvenile Law |
| Title: | YARBOROUGH v. ALVARADO |
| Date: | 06/01/04 |
| Case Number: | 02–1684 |
| Summary: | A state court considered the proper factors and reached a reasonable conclusion that minor defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes during his police interview. The District Court's decision granting habeas relief under AEDPA is reversed. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam |
| Title: | MIDDLETON v. MCNEIL |
| Date: | 05/03/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-1028 |
| Summary: | The state court did not err when it found that, considering the instructions on voluntary manslaughter and imperfect self-defense in their entirety, there was no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled by the erroneous imminent-peril instruction. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam |
| Title: | JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA |
| Date: | 05/03/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-6539 |
| Summary: | The California Supreme Court's decision on petitioner's Wheeler/Batson claim was not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1257; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | DRETKE v. HALEY |
| Date: | 05/03/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1824 |
| Summary: | The Court declines to decide whether the actual innocence exception extends to noncapital sentencing errors. When faced with allegations of actual innocence, whether of the sentence or of the crime charged, a federal court must first address all nondefaulted claims for comparable relief and other grounds for cause to excuse the procedural default. |