Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance

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

• United States v. Bozza
  365 F.2d 206· 2d Cir.· 1966-08-01 ·cited 209×
  The majority reverses convictions based on the admission of a co-defendant's confession, finding it prejudiced other defendants despite limiting instructions.
• United States v. Berkowitz
  662 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 189×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, limiting cross-examination, or in its handling of other issues raised by the defendants.
• United States v. DeSIMONE
  660 F.2d 532· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 133×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support DeSimone's conviction for conspiracy and importation, requiring reversal. However, the evidence was sufficient to support Waldon's conviction for conspiracy and importation.
• United States v. Susanne M. Hutchinson
  488 F.2d 484· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the entry by an undercover agent invited into a home for a drug transaction did not require announcement under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy.
• Lugo v. State
  845 So. 2d 74· Fla.· 2003-02-20 ·cited 116×
  Daniel Lugo was convicted of two murders (Frank Griga and Krisztina Furton), two attempted murders (Marc Schiller), racketeering, and other related felonies. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentences, finding substantial evidence of a sophisticated cr
• Peterson v. United States
  344 F.2d 419· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-13 ·cited 106×
  The court held that admitting former testimony of an unavailable witness without sufficient predicate and improperly instructing the jury on essential elements of the charges constituted reversible error.
• United States v. MacHado
  804 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 105×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of coconspirator statements, denial of severance motions, limitations on cross-examination, or sufficiency of evidence for the charges.
• United States v. Johnson
  478 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-17 ·cited 97×
  The trial court abused its discretion by denying a severance to a defendant whose co-defendant's confession and defense strategy directly implicated and contradicted his own.
• Nelson v. United States
  415 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-08 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on severance, jury instructions, or the denial of a new trial.
• United States v. Harrell
  737 F.2d 971· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Hawkins' conviction on the Travel Act charge (Count Three), reversing that conviction, but affirmed all other convictions and rulings.
• United States v. Crawford
  581 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance when defendants presented mutually exclusive and irreconcilable defenses, leading to prejudice.
• United States v. Cruz
  478 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-04 ·cited 85×
  The court held that indictments based on hearsay are valid, destroyed notes do not violate the Jencks Act if not substantially verbatim, and variance or joinder issues do not require reversal absent prejudice, especially in a bench trial.
• United States v. Mardian
  546 F.2d 973· D.C. Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's second motion for severance, which was based on the illness of his lead counsel and the disproportionately weaker evidence against him compared to co-defendants.
• United States v. Warner
  690 F.2d 545· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 72×
  The court held that a fatal variance existed between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof showing multiple conspiracies, requiring reversal of the conspiracy conviction. The court also found that the prejudicial spillover from the conspiracy evidence required
• United States v. Jenkins
  496 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-05 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed convictions for Jenkins, Hall, and Wilcox, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in denying severance. The conviction for Morrow was remanded for correction of sentencing form.
• United States v. Rogers
  921 F.2d 975· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 63×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are not required for routine post-conviction presentence interviews, and that delays caused by speedy trial motions are excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Cardall
  885 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the second prosecution did not violate double jeopardy, joinder was proper, and the admission of evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Rucker
  586 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting prior conviction evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Williams v. United States
  416 F.2d 1064· 8th Cir.· 1969-10-09 ·cited 60×
  The court held that a defendant is constitutionally entitled to representation by counsel on direct appeal, and the absence of such counsel requires a new appellate review. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance.
• Barton v. United States
  263 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1959-02-26 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for severance, as the co-defendant's confession, which heavily implicated the moving defendant, could not be effectively limited by jury instructions.
• United States v. Werner
  620 F.2d 922· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the joinder of two distinct robberies under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) was proper because they were of a 'similar character,' and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a severance under Rule 14.
• United States v. Adams
  581 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and charges was proper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) due to the conspiracy charge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance under Rule 14. The court also affirmed the admissibility of hypnotically refreshe
• United States v. Morris
  647 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in consolidating indictments, instructing the jury on reasonable doubt, admitting evidence of cash found, charging the jury on possession of recently stolen property, or in its search warrant procedures.
• United States v. Carmelo Ayarza-Garcia
  819 F.2d 1043· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for judgment of acquittal, in determining that the sufficiency of evidence for subject matter jurisdiction was a jury question, in denying severance motions, or in denying post-trial motions without an evidenti
• United States v. Gonzalez
  933 F.2d 417· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the indictment was not multiplicitous, severance was not required, the display of cocaine was proper, expert testimony was admissible, and there was sufficient evidence for the convictions.
• United States v. Manzella
  782 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 48×
  A conspiracy to commit an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) can serve as a predicate act for a RICO violation, and midtrial publicity does not warrant reversal if actual prejudice is not shown.
• United States v. Loalza-Vasquez
  735 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court did not err in asserting jurisdiction, admitting hearsay evidence under the residual exception, denying severance, or finding no unconsented conflict of interest.
• United States v. O'Malley
  707 F.2d 1240· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for mail fraud and extortion, that cross-examination regarding unreported campaign contributions was proper impeachment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for severance.
• United States v. Behrens
  689 F.2d 154· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to distribute narcotics were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding evidence, indictment, severance, and sufficiency of evidence.
• Manfred Daut v. United States
  405 F.2d 312· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a separate trial, the motion for a continuance, or in its rulings regarding the jury and the constitutionality of the statute.
• United States v. Dryden
  423 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-23 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling motions to dismiss, for severance, to suppress testimony, in admitting evidence of prior convictions, or in failing to submit the multiple conspiracy issue to the jury.
• United States v. Thomann
  609 F.2d 560· 1st Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of his wife's fingerprints, and that his other claims regarding severance, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• United States v. Castillo-Valencia
  917 F.2d 494· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the joint trial of ten co-defendants did not subject the appellants to compelling prejudice, and affirmed the district court's denial of their severance motion. It also affirmed the sentencing decisions regarding acceptance of responsibility, managerial role,
• United States v. Barney Grabiec
  563 F.2d 313· 7th Cir.· 1977-09-02 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court erred in admitting evidence of four separate criminal acts by one conspirator.
• United States v. Frazier
  394 F.2d 258· 4th Cir.· 1968-04-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying severance motions and refusing an in camera inspection of the government file, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Mitchell
  788 F.2d 1232· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 39×
  The court held that allowing a defendant to proceed pro se with standby counsel, despite a less than exhaustive warning about the dangers of self-representation, was not reversible error, and that the denial of severance and the sentence imposed were proper.
• United States v. Graziano
  710 F.2d 691· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a defendant's severance claim based on a co-defendant's silence fails without a showing of compelling prejudice from antagonistic defenses, and that a conviction under 21 U.S.C.A. § 848 for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is supported by evidence
• United States v. Horton
  705 F.2d 1414· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendants' speedy trial rights were not violated due to permissible exclusions for pretrial motion delays, and that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions.
• Dauer v. United States
  189 F.2d 343· 10th Cir.· 1951-05-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for severance and that objections to jury instructions were waived.
• United States v. Frazier
  584 F.2d 790· 6th Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendants were not denied a speedy trial, the trial judge did not exhibit bias, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Kopel
  552 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 36×
  It was impermissible to show the jury that Kopel consulted his attorney before answering incriminating questions, as this violates due process principles established in Doyle v. Ohio.
• United States v. Allan Harvey Bibby (82-5705)
  752 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the misjoinder of certain tax counts was harmless error, and that while multiple conspiracies existed, the defendants were not prejudiced by being charged with a single conspiracy, except for Gillock's conspiracy conviction which was reversed due to prejudice
• United States v. Tedesco
  726 F.2d 1216· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 34×
  The court held that delays caused by codefendants' motions and interlocutory appeals, the defendant's own speedy trial motion, and the need to secure an immunized witness were properly excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, thus the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated
• Ross v. United States
  197 F.2d 660· 6th Cir.· 1952-05-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that inconsistent verdicts within a single indictment are permissible, and acquittal on a conspiracy count does not preclude conviction on substantive counts arising from the same trial. The denial of severance motions was also upheld as within the trial court's di
• Miller v. United States
  410 F.2d 1290· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the alleged trial errors, including evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial comments, were harmless.
• United States v. LEE
  428 F.2d 917· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a court-martial conviction counts as a prior conviction for the purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 902(e), and that the admission of evidence regarding the stolen nature of the firearm was harmless error. However, the court found that the government failed to demonstrate
• United States v. Barbosa
  666 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the denial of the severance motion was not an abuse of discretion and that prosecutorial misconduct claims were unfounded.
• United States v. Kendricks
  623 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 28×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's extrajudicial statements, made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy, is permissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Troutman
  458 F.2d 217· 10th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the collective knowledge of the police and that the denial of the severance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. DeVARONA
  872 F.2d 114· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that the joinder of defendants and charges was proper, affirming the conviction.