18 U.S.C. § 3501(A)

20 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. McLERNON
  746 F.2d 1098· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 89×
  The court held that a voluntariness instruction was not required when the defense strategy was to deny the statement was made, and that items seized in plain view were properly seized under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. Jacobs
  547 F.2d 772· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 61×
  The court held that its prior decision to suppress testimony and dismiss a perjury count, based on supervisory power to enforce uniform prosecutorial practice, was appropriate despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Mandujano.
• United States v. Lambros
  564 F.2d 26· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-27 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that the trial court did not commit reversible error regarding evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. House
  939 F.2d 659· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were properly admitted, evidence of prior criminal conduct was admissible, the jury instructions were appropriate, and the sentence for possession of cocaine base was constitutional.
• United States v. Groce
  682 F.2d 1359· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the trial judge improperly refused to ask prospective jurors about racial prejudice, this error was not reversible because there was no reasonable possibility that racial prejudice influenced the jury. The court also found the admission of a nautical cha
• United States v. Nash
  910 F.2d 749· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 31×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court erred by not allowing voir dire questions to uncover potential juror bias towards law enforcement testimony.
• United States v. Ible
  630 F.2d 389· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's conduct of voir dire.
• United States v. Hart
  729 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Miranda and Jackson v. Denno claims by failing to raise them in the trial court, that jury admonitions were adequate, evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, the lack of a voir dire transcript did not preclude review, and
• United States v. Crook
  502 F.2d 1378· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-02 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's judgment should be affirmed because the majority opinion incorrectly characterized the district court's reasoning and overrules prior precedent.
• The United States v. Soldier
  538 F.2d 196· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-28 ·cited 15×
  The court held that statements made by the defendant were admissible, even without full Miranda warnings prior to the final statement, because the defendant initiated the interview and had previously been advised of his rights. The court also found no impermissible delay in prese
• United States v. Garrett
  521 F.2d 444· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Mann Act is constitutional and that the admission of the defendant's statement and the victim's testimony was proper.
• United States v. Bennie E. Barnes
  464 F.2d 828· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that statements made by the defendant prior to arrest and Miranda warnings were admissible, and that the loss of police notes in good faith did not violate the Jencks Act.
• United States v. Davis
  936 F.2d 352· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was harmless error and that the defendant's 1971 burglary conviction counted towards the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement because his civil rights restoration did not override federal firearm prohibitions.
• United States v. Ernie Dimitric Caro
  965 F.2d 1548· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting statements made during a wiretap, in its jury instructions, or in admitting coconspirator statements, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Yamashita
  527 F.2d 954· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's right to counsel, admitting confessions, or commenting on the appellant's failure to testify.
• United States v. Lorenzo Lawrence Jose DE LA LUZ Gallegos
  738 F.2d 378· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that spontaneous, unprovoked statements made by a defendant after invoking the right to counsel, and not in response to interrogation, are admissible. The court also held that a prosecutor's opening statement mentioning the defendant's request for counsel was not g
• United States v. Benally
  756 F.2d 773· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred by summarily denying a motion to suppress statements without a voluntariness hearing and by giving an erroneous jury instruction regarding stipulated facts.
• United States v. Bulls
  577 F.2d 63· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's statement was proper, and that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Miller
  987 F.2d 1462· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying an untimely motion to suppress a confession without a hearing and that the denial of a motion for a new trial based on a recantation was not an abuse of discretion.