-
451 F.2d 516·
10th Cir.·
1971-11-19
·cited 60×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting repetitive cross-examination, that the defendant's absence from certain conferences did not constitute grounds for mistrial, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
-
569 F.2d 1020·
7th Cir.·
1978-02-01
·cited 46×
The court held that the evidence of extortion affecting interstate commerce was overwhelming, even if some specific payments did not meet the threshold.
-
494 F.2d 1262·
6th Cir.·
1974-04-11
·cited 40×
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged threat specifically related to the witness's testimony in a pending federal proceeding, and that the trial court abused its discretion by unduly limiting cross-examination re
-
938 F.2d 1343·
D.C. Cir.·
1991-07-16
·cited 30×
The court should not consider the harmless error doctrine when the government fails to argue it, as this would violate the adversary system and judicial neutrality.
-
413 So. 2d 1272·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1982-05-14
·cited 29×
Leon Elmore Powe was convicted of trafficking in methaqualone, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding potential bias and motivation for testifying, particularly regar
-
833 F.2d 1307·
9th Cir.·
1987-12-07
·cited 24×
The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time of his confession to a cellmate informant, and his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated as the informant was not a government agent and the confession was not part of a custodial
-
908 So. 2d 543·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2005-07-29
·cited 19×
The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed Reginald Bordelon's conviction for giving a false name to a law enforcement officer, holding that the trial court improperly curtailed his right to recross-examine the State's only witness on new material introduced during redir
-
622 F.2d 898·
5th Cir.·
1980-08-01
·cited 16×
The court held that the trial court's limitation on defense counsel's cross-examination did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
-
350 F.2d 231·
9th Cir.·
1965-08-20
·cited 14×
The court held that the trial court's finding of fact regarding proximate cause was not clearly erroneous, and the limitation on cross-examination did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
-
797 F.2d 656·
8th Cir.·
1986-07-24
·cited 8×
The court held that an indictment returned by a grand jury that previously heard a defendant's immunized testimony on related matters requires an evidentiary hearing to determine if the indictment was based on evidence derived from legitimate independent sources, rather than the
-
937 F.2d 1346·
8th Cir.·
1991-07-03
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence of the victim's physical incapacity and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or sentencing.
-
947 F.2d 32·
2d Cir.·
1991-08-19
·cited 4×
The court held that restricting the cross-examination of the government's expert witness regarding whether the explosive device was designed as a weapon impermissibly prevented the defendants from presenting their defense, constituting reversible error.
-
542 F.2d 598·
2d Cir.·
1976-10-15
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in limiting cross-examination and that the confession was admissible and evidence sufficient.
-
328 So. 3d 1080·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2021-10-13
·cited 3×
The appellate court reversed a defendant's convictions for sexual battery and lewd molestation, finding that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court determined that counsel's failure to object to prejudicial evidence, including references to uncharged crimes