LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 
Forgotten your password?


CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions

PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access


OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online


RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2014 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2013 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links



  
Federal New Releases

New Releases
from Federal Courts

Viewing the full text of these opinions will require logging in with your user name and password.

Criminal law -- Habeas corpus -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Counsel -- Ineffectiveness -- State court's rejection of claim that counsel was ineffective during guilt phase of trial for failing to cross-examine state witness, a co-participant in robbery who identified defendant as shooter at trial, with transcript of statements made by witness to police a week after incident was not unreasonable -- Penalty-phase ineffective assistance -- Investigation or presentation of mitigating evidence -- State court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in holding that counsel's failure to introduce any of the available mitigating evidence of defendant's mental impairment and history of abuse had no reasonable probability of reducing defendant's sentence -- Because omitted mitigating evidence, when compared to what little was actually introduced at trial, undermines confidence in outcome of defendant's sentencing, defendant suffered prejudice at penalty phase of capital trial
VIEW OPINION

Criminal law -- Habeas corpus -- Sentencing -- Second or successive petition -- Savings clause -- Pro se federal prisoner's challenge to validity of his sentence on collateral review, in reliance on Alleyne v. United States, did not qualify for review under Section 2255(e)'s savings clause because petitioner failed to satisfy the third requirement to proceed under Section 2255(e), which is that the new rule announced in Alleyne applies retroactively on collateral review -- Alleyne does not apply retroactively -- Even if Alleyne applied retroactively, petitioner could not satisfy the fourth requirement, which is that retroactive application of Alleyne would mean that his current sentence exceeds the statutory maximum authorized by Congress for his crime, because his current sentence would not exceed the statutory maximum authorized by Congress -- Even assuming petitioner satisfied all five requirements to proceed under Section 2255(e), his argument that district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by failing to submit to jury the question of whether he had a prior conviction that qualified him for the ten-year mandatory minimum is without merit
VIEW OPINION

Find out more about FLW Federal.