skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query prosecutors returned 37 results.

1000 MILLER-EL V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
885 VAN V. GOLDSTEIN
[Syllabus]
795 CONNICK V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
716 UNITED STATES V. RUIZ
[Syllabus]
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
716 MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL
[Syllabus]
The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
619 ROTHGERY V. GILLESPIE COUNTY
[Syllabus]
619
[Syllabus]
619 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
553 CONN V. GABBERT
[Syllabus]
477
[Syllabus]
477 WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD
[Syllabus]
377 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
377 SNYDER V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
377
[Syllabus]
377 CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
377 SNYDER V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
377 FLORIDA V. NIXON
[Syllabus]
238 BOBBY V. BIES
[Syllabus]
238 INS V. ST. CYR
[Syllabus]
Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
238 UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990)
[Syllabus]
238 STENBERG V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
238 MASSARO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant, whose new appellate counsel fails to raise, on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is procedurally barred from asserting that constitutional claim in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
238
[Syllabus]
238 ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD
[Syllabus]
238 HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995).
[Syllabus]
238 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
238 GRAY V. MARYLAND, 523 U.S. 185 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 RIVERA V. ILLINOIS
[Syllabus]
238 GILES V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
238 PREMO V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
238 BLACK V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
238 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
238 BROGAN V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 AYERS V. BELMONTES
[Syllabus]
238 BREWER V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
238 SMALL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
238 KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)
[Syllabus]