Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Habeas Corpus : From 10/01/06 To 07/01/07
Number of summaries found: 12
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Health Law, Sentencing |
| Title: | Panetti v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 06/28/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-6407 |
| Summary: | Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by a prisoner convicted and sentenced to death in a Texas state court is reversed where: 1) the Supreme Court has statutory authority to adjudicate the claims raised in the habeas application; 2) a state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution; and 3) a federal appellate court employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner's claim of incompetency on the merits. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Bowles v. Russell |
| Date: | 06/14/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-5306 |
| Summary: | The timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and case law precedent setting forth the "unique circumstances" doctrine is overruled to the extent the cases purported to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule. In a habeas case in which a district court purported to extend petitioner's time for filing an appeal beyond the period allowed by statute, dismissal of petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where petitioner's untimely notice, even though filed in reliance upon the district court's order, deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Fry v. Pliler |
| Date: | 06/11/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-5247 |
| Summary: | In 28 U.S.C. section 2254 proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under Brecht's "substantial and injurious effect" standard, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness under the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Uttecht v. Brown |
| Date: | 06/04/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-413 |
| Summary: | Grant of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus setting aside a capital sentence, pursuant to a claim that the trial court had violated petitioner's constitutional rights by excusing a potential juror for cause, is reversed where the court of appeals neglected to accord the proper deference required of courts reviewing claims of Witherspoon-Witt error, and on the record it was error to find that a juror was not substantially impaired in the performance of their duties. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam, Sentencing |
| Title: | Roper v. Weaver |
| Date: | 05/21/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-313 |
| Summary: | The writ of certiorari in a criminal matter, which raised an issue regarding whether a court of appeals properly applied the AEDPA's stringent standard of review in setting aside a capital sentence, is dismissed as improvidently granted, as the Court found it necessary to prevent three identically-situated litigants from being treated in a needlessly disparate manner, simply because the district court in this matter erroneously dismissed respondent's pre-AEDPA petition. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Schriro v. Landrigan |
| Date: | 05/14/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-1575 |
| Summary: | In habeas proceedings in a death penalty case, a circuit court's decision remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance claim is reversed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant respondent an evidentiary hearing. Even assuming the truth of all the facts respondent sought to prove at the evidentiary hearing at issue, he still could not be granted federal habeas relief because state courts' factual determination that respondent would not have allowed counsel to present any mitigating evidence at sentencing was not an unreasonable determination of the facts under the AEDPA, and the mitigating evidence he sought to introduce would not have changed the result. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11284 |
| Summary: | In a capital murder case, denial of habeas relief for petitioner is reversed where there was a reasonable likelihood that a state trial court's instructions prevented jurors from giving meaningful consideration to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence, and consequently a court of appeals' ruling resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Brewer v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11287 |
| Summary: | In a capital murder case, denial of a habeas petition is reversed where the Texas capital sentencing statute, as interpreted by a state court, impermissibly prevented defendant's jury from giving meaningful consideration and effect to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence. Thus, its decision denying relief under Penry was contrary to, and involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Smith v. Texas |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11287 |
| Summary: | In a first-degree murder and death penalty case in which sentencing took place in between the two Penry decisions of the Supreme Court, denial of relief on collateral review is reversed where a state court's errors of federal law regarding preservation of a Penry claim could not be the predicate for requiring him to show egregious harm, and petitioner appeared to be entitled to relief under the applicable state harmless-error framework. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Brewer v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11287 |
| Summary: | In a capital murder case, denial of a habeas petition is reversed where the Texas capital sentencing statute, as interpreted by a state court, impermissibly prevented defendant's jury from giving meaningful consideration and effect to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence. Thus, its decision denying relief under Penry was contrary to, and involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. |