CALVIN HOWARD, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner challenging his felony conviction based on the alleged unconstitutional use of statements made while in police custody without being informed of his rights. The court appointed a commissioner to take testimony and make findings regarding the admissibility of the statements.
The court did not directly rule on the constitutionality of the statements but found it necessary to appoint a commissioner to determine the extent to which the testimony might have been constitutionally inadmissible.
“Petitioner alleges that his felony conviction below was unconstitutionally tainted by use at trial of testimony concerning statements elicited from petitioner while in police custody and without his having been informed of the constitutional right to remain silent and to have counsel.”
This quote outlines the core allegation of the petitioner regarding the unconstitutional use of statements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner, Calvin Howard, Jr., was convicted of a felony. He claims his conviction was unconstitutionally tainted by the use of testimony about s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner alleges that his felony conviction below was unconstitutionally tainted by use at trial of testimony concerning statements elicited from petitioner while in police custody and without his having been informed of the constitutional right to remain silent and to have counsel. Petitioner has exhausted his available remedies under Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. We granted Writ of Habeas Corpus and required a return.
Now, having considered the return, we think it necessary to appoint a Commissioner in this cause who can determine to what extent the testimony complained of may have been constitutionally inadmissible. Accordingly, we appoint the Honorable Harold R. Vann, Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, as Commissioner. Judge Vann is empowered to take such testimony as shall be deemed necessary, and, thereafter, he is to report with all convenient speed to this Court the testimony taken, along with his findings and whatever recommendations he may make concerning this cause. Petitioner may be-represented by counsel of his choice.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co. v. Addison, 502 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1987)…aw. Standard Instruction 4.11 was the instruction that should have been given by the trial court. This instruction tracks the established rule of law that a violation of a traffic regulation is evidence of negligence. See, e.g., Chimerakis v. Evans, 221 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1969), and Clark v. Sumner, 72 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1954). When there is evidence of such a violation a party, is entitled to a jury instruction thereon. This is simply a specific application of the equally established rule of law that a party is en…
-
MacNEIL v. Singer, 389 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ty plea is a kind of “admission against interest.” Absent an express exclusionary rule such as is contained in section 318.14(4)(b), it may be introduced in a civil action against a party, if relevant and material to the issues. Chimerakis v. Evans, 221 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1969); Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1967). However, it is axiomatic that any such admission must be made by-, the party against whom it is offered, or with his consent, direction, or concurrence.5 Mizell v. Trave…
-
Carter v. Musa Tony Rukab & S.C. Ins. Co., 437 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…s substantive evidence. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 803.18, p. 287. In that vein, past decisions of this state hold that a plea of guilty to a traffic offense is admissible as an admission against interest by a party opponent. Chimerakis v. Evans, 221 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1969); Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1967). However, the rule of admissibility was changed in 1974 when the legislature decriminalized certain minor traffic violations. The new law provided that any person charge…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence