All my blogs

WINNING FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES - http://winning-federal-criminal-cases.blogsDissenting Opinions -http://dissentingopinions.blogspot.comWinning Federal Criminal Cases -http://winning-federal-criminal-cases.blogspot.comIneffective Assistance of Counsel - http://ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.blogspot.comInteresting Criminal Cases - http://interestingcriminalcases.blogspot.comWinning SSI Disability Cases - http://winningsssdisabilitycases.blogspot.comHomeless in Heaven - http://homelessinheaven.blogspot.comHabeas Corpus Winners http://habeascorpuswinners.blogspot.comMontana Winning Cases http://montana winningcases.blogspot.comWinning Daily Decisions http://winningdailydecisions.blogspot.comDaily Decisions - http://dailydecision.blogspot.com/atom.xml MarkGivenPhotographs http://markgivenphotographs.blogspot.com

Equitable tolling winner

Roy v. Lampert (09/22/06 - No. 04-35514).

Dismissal of petitioners' federal habeas petitions as untimely is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on their equitable tolling claim where they made sufficient allegations that they pursued their claims diligently and faced extraordinary circumstances once they were transferred to an Arizona prison facility which allegedly had a woefully deficient law library. (Amended opinion, rehearing en banc denied) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0435514p.pdf

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Martin v. Grosshans, 424 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2005).

Ineffective assistance of counsel: counsel's performance defeicient in failing to object to irrelevant and prejudicial testimony of prosecution's witness; failing to move for mistrial after prosecutor's inflammatory closeing argument, and cummulative error.

prosecutor struck potential jurors on the basis of their race is reversed

Kesser v. Cambra (09/11/06 - No. 02-15475). In a murder case, denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus making a Batson claim that the prosecutor struck potential jurors on the basis of their race is reversed where, in light of Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S. Ct. 2317 (2005), the California Court of Appeal’s findings were “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0215475p.pdf

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Death Penalty

Frierson v. Woodford, No. 04-99002 (9th Cir. September 14, 2006)Denial of a habeas corpus petition in a death penalty case is reversed with respect to the penalty phase of trail where trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to investigate and present important mitigation evidence at the penalty phase of a trial, and in failing to review juvenile court records and to challenge a key mitigation witness's assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination at the penalty trial, and the errors were prejudicial. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0499002p.pdf

Denial of his habeas petition is reversed

Comer v. Schriro, No. 98-99003 (9th Cir. September 13, 2006).

The Constitution does not permit a state to execute a capital defendant who wants to die but whose properly filed federal habeas appeal has not yet been substantively reviewed. The state's and a death row prisoner's motions to dismiss his own appeal are denied where, although petitioner competently and voluntarily waived his habeas appeal right, upholding the waiver would amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Denial of his habeas petition is reversed as to the penalty phase where petitioner's sentence was invalid and habeas relief was merited based on the violation of his due process rights that occurred when he was sentenced to death while nearly naked, bleeding, shackled, and exhausted. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9899003p.pdf

Batson winner

Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653 (3rd Cir. 2005)(2254)(Batson winner).

egregiously improper closing argument

Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2005)(2254)(No. 03-3166)During his egregiously improper closing argument, the prosecutor commented on the credibility of witnesses, misrepresented the facts of the case, made derogatory remarks about the defendant, and generally tried to convince the jury to convict on the basis of bad character, all while defense trial counsel sat idly by.

Violated Confrontation Clause

Kittelson v. Dretke, 426 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2005)(2254)(State trial court violated Confrontation Clause and due process by permitting state to imply that a second child had accused defendant, but excluding defense evidence of recantation, and exclusion of evidence was not harmless.

The Great Writ

FAY v. NOIA, 372 U.S. 391 (1963) 372 U.S. 391 . The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: If the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. We do well to bear in mind the extraordinary prestige of the Great Writ, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, 5 in [372 U.S. 391, 400] Anglo-American jurisprudence: "the most celebrated writ in the English law." 3 Blackstone Commentaries 129. It is "a writ antecedent to statute, and throwing its root deep into the genius of our common law. . . . It is perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England, affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of immemorial antiquity, an instance of its use occurring in the thirty-third year of Edward I." Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O'Brien, 1923. A. C. 603, 609 (H. L.). Received into our own law in the colonial period, 6 given explicit recognition in the Federal Constitution, Art. I, 9, cl. 2, 7 incorporated in the first grant of federal court jurisdiction, Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, 14, 1 Stat. 81-82, habeas corpus was early confirmed by Chief Justice John Marshall to be a "great constitutional privilege." Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75, 95. Only two Terms ago this Court had occasion to reaffirm the high place of the writ in our jurisprudence: "We repeat what has been so truly said of the federal writ: `there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired,' Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26 (1939), and unsuspended, save only in the cases specified in our Constitution. " Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 713 .