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 transcript returned 20 results.

1000 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In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence.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?
945 ONTARIO V. QUON
[Syllabus]
885 M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
630
[Syllabus]
497
[Syllabus]
497 SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
315 LEE V. KEMNA
[Syllabus]
Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
315 KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL
[Syllabus]
315 UNITED STATES V. VONN
[Syllabus]
A defendant who does not object to a trial court's error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 must satisfy Rule 52(b)'s plain-error rule in order to withdraw a guilty plea; a reviewing court may look beyond the plea colloquy to the whole record in determining whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the Rule 11 error.
315 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
315 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 DECK V. MISSOURI
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]
315 J. D. B. V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
315 UTTECHT V. BROWN
[Syllabus]
315 TAPIA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
315 HALBERT V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
315 PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990)
[Syllabus]
315
[Syllabus]