Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance

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

• United States v. Spitler
  800 F.2d 1267· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance and mistrial, as the defendants failed to demonstrate sufficiently irreconcilable defenses or actual prejudice from a joint trial. The court also affirmed Carpenter's extortion co
• United States v. Ellsworth
  481 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1973-06-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, admitting co-conspirator statements, or in its rulings on the scope of cross-examination and disclosure of exculpatory evidence. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• United States v. Piepgrass
  425 F.2d 194· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Hofhines' conviction for conspiracy, but sufficient to support the convictions of Piepgrass and McCandless for conspiracy and related fraud charges.
• State v. Talavera
  243 So. 2d 595· Fla.· 1971-01-20 ·cited 24×
  A severance motion must demonstrate the exculpatory nature of a codefendant's testimony, willingness to testify, reasons for unwillingness at joint trial, and relevance/materiality to justify granting severance.
• United States v. Stotts
  792 F.2d 1318· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for severance, mistrial, admitting handwriting expert testimony, or in its jury charge regarding the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 876.
• United States v. Brown
  921 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that sentencing based on the total weight of a drug mixture, including diluents, is constitutional and that evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug possession with intent to distribute and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  804 F.2d 691· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defenses of the two defendants were not mutually antagonistic, and therefore, severance was not required.
• United States v. Daly
  756 F.2d 1076· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions, finding that the tax avoidance scheme was unlawful and that the trial court did not err in its procedural or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Berlin
  472 F.2d 13· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-02 ·cited 20×
  A seller who knows a car is stolen can be guilty of willfully causing its interstate transportation under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) if the transportation is purposeful and an integral part of the overall scheme, not merely reasonably foreseeable.
• United States v. Walsh
  544 F.2d 156· 4th Cir.· 1976-10-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 224 applies to conspiracies involving sports contest participants, not just outsiders, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to commit bribery and defraud the IRS.
• United States v. Gray
  462 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a severance or admitting a redacted confession, and that photographic identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive.
• United States v. Gorecki
  813 F.2d 40· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the joinder of drug and weapon offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice under Rule 14 to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Delmer E. DAY (84-5797
  789 F.2d 1217· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a pretrial recorded statement, even if sworn, is inadmissible as substantive evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) if it was not given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury or in a formal proceeding, and its admission constitutes prejudicial error unl
• United States v. Williams
  711 F.2d 748· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying severance, the speedy trial right was not violated, and the admission of grand jury testimony did not affect substantial rights.
• Bateson v. State
  761 So. 2d 1165· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-07 ·cited 14×
  Donald Bateson, a former police officer, appealed his convictions for armed burglary and grand theft. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting his challenges to the joinder of two separate burglary charges and the admission of his girlfriend's testimony, which included impeachment
• Vern Leslie Herd v. Kincheloe
  800 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that both the Sandstrom jury instruction error and the Bruton error were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Hamilton
  694 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the wire fraud conviction and that the joinder and severance of counts were proper.
• United States v. Levrie
  445 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for severance and mistrial, as the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice.
• United States v. Burnley Horace Lankford
  296 F.2d 34· 4th Cir.· 1961-10-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for severance, nor in its interpretation of statutes regarding the transport and concealment of stolen vehicles.
• United States v. Featherson
  949 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, that the use of transcripts was permissible, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy and firearm convictions.
• United States v. Puig
  810 F.2d 1085· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the border search of the boat, including drilling into its hull, was constitutional, and the defendants' statements were voluntary and admissible. Any error regarding comments on post-Miranda silence was harmless.
• Gornick v. United States
  320 F.2d 325· 10th Cir.· 1963-07-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a severance and that there was sufficient evidence to support the assault conviction.
• United States v. Rucker
  915 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by not granting Robert Rucker's motion to sever his trial from Tony Rucker's, and that Tony Rucker was prejudiced by the improper admission of evidence.
• United States v. Vernon Barrett (90-5715)
  933 F.2d 355· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that convictions for conspiracy and attempt arising from the same transaction do not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Bryan
  843 F.2d 1339· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for severance, as they failed to demonstrate compelling prejudice from the joint trial.
• Williams v. State
  567 So. 2d 9· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-08-15 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motions for severance, as the appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the evidence was not confusing.
• United States v. Sellers
  658 F.2d 230· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the defendant's motions for continuance, severance, and restrictions on cross-examination.
• United States v. Blanchette
  453 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's guilty verdict, and the trial court did not err in denying motions for acquittal or severance.
• United States v. Burnley
  452 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that appellants waived their right to appeal the denial of their severance motion by failing to diligently pursue it below and that evidence admitted against one appellant was properly received.
• Smith v. State
  776 So. 2d 957· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-12-20 ·cited 7×
  Ben Arthur Smith, a convicted felon, was charged with two counts of unlawful firearm possession. He was acquitted of one count (relating to a firearm he pawned) but convicted of the other (a firearm found in the trunk of a car he was driving). The appellate court affirmed his con
• United States v. Feldman
  936 F.3d 1288· 11th Cir.· 2019-08-30 ·cited 6×
  Dr. Edward Feldman, a physician, and his wife Kim were convicted of conspiring to distribute controlled substances without legitimate medical purpose, conspiring to commit money laundering, and related offenses, with Dr. Feldman also convicted of distributing drugs that resulted
• United States v. Tootick
  952 F.2d 1078· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the joint trial of defendants asserting mutually exclusive defenses resulted in manifest prejudice, constituting an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
• United States v. Blakney
  941 F.2d 114· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the severance motion and properly considered the defendant's prior conviction for both offense level and criminal history calculations under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Emond
  935 F.2d 1511· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, and that sufficient evidence supported the mail fraud convictions.
• United States v. Jonas
  786 F.2d 1019· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting redacted statements, or in its handling of a potentially biased juror. The convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Rickey
  457 F.2d 1027· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was proper, severance was not required, and the trial court's rulings and jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Martin
  960 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Martin's convictions and that Vaughn's claims of severance, unlawful search, and improper admission of a photograph did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. ELY
  910 F.2d 455· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the severance motion because the government presented sufficient evidence of the drug conspiracy charge, and the defendant's Fifth Amendment pleas did not cause unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Johnson
  763 F.2d 773· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the joinder of the mail fraud count against Rosemary Johnson with other counts against co-defendants was proper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) and 14, and that she failed to show sufficient prejudice to warrant severance.
• United States v. Begun
  446 F.2d 32· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the joinder of drug and firearms charges was proper and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motions for election or severance.
• Napier v. United States
  387 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants' confessions and the admission of serial numbers were proper, and the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Long
  894 F.2d 101· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for severance and that any error in amending the indictment was harmless.
• United States v. McNEAL
  865 F.2d 1173· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever or the motion to query jurors without a hearing, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Prows
  728 F.2d 1398· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for severance and that the admission of co-conspirator statements was not reversible error. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Gonzales v. State
  9 So. 3d 725· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-04-22 ·cited 1×
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to sever a cocaine possession charge from a felony DUI charge where the offenses are clearly connected in an episodic sense, arise from a single criminal transaction, and where substantial independent evidence of imp
• United States v. Kenneth A. Weiner (91-1551) & Steven M. Lewin (91-1582)
  988 F.2d 629· 6th Cir.· 1993-03-11
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Weiner's cooperation with the FBI, the results of polygraph examinations, and in denying severance motions, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Avery Smith
  919 F.2d 67· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-29
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance, using a prior burglary conviction for sentence enhancement, refusing an insanity instruction, or reading a stipulation of prior convictions to the jury.
• United States v. Jalid Jose Amer
  824 F.2d 906· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-14
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a new jury selection after a codefendant is severed mid-trial, provided the initial denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. ROX
  692 F.2d 453· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-12
  The court held that the joinder of offenses was proper under Rule 8(a) and the denial of severance under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Cota-Rubalcaba
  431 F.2d 637· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-21
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a severance or admitting evidence, and that the Bruton rule was not violated.