Admonition To Jury

59 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Bailey v. United States
  410 F.2d 1209· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-16 ·cited 86×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in denying severance, sufficient evidence to support convictions, proper admission of statements, and no reversible error in prosecutorial remarks or jury interference.
• Coppedge v. United States
  272 F.2d 504· D.C. Cir.· 1959-06-23 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after jurors were exposed to prejudicial newspaper articles, and that the court's admonitions and inquiry were insufficient to cure the prejudice.
• Mares v. United States
  383 F.2d 805· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-15 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to ascertain whether jurors were exposed to a prejudicial newspaper article necessitated a new trial.
• United States v. Slocum
  708 F.2d 587· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 63×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and substantive violations related to bird quarantine, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient customs custody. The court reversed the suppression of business records seized under
• United States v. D'Antonio
  342 F.2d 667· 7th Cir.· 1965-02-09 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge has discretion to allow jury separation during deliberations, and the verdict should stand unless discretion is abused or prejudice results.
• Renaldo Ferrari v. United States
  244 F.2d 132· 9th Cir.· 1957-05-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts against the appellants and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial based on newspaper publicity or in admitting testimony for impeachment purposes.
• United States v. Blane
  375 F.2d 249· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing cross-examination of character witnesses about newspaper articles, in refusing a specific jury instruction that was adequately covered by the general charge, and in admonishing the jury about outside inf
• United States v. Goldstein
  120 F.2d 485· 2d Cir.· 1941-06-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the prosecution had the burden to prove that evidence derived from illegal wiretaps did not contribute to witness testimony, and absent such proof, witnesses induced by wiretaps should not have been allowed to testify. However, the convictions could stand beca
• Verg Lee Nero v. Blackburn
  597 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the attorney's failure to move for a mistrial after the prosecutor improperly revealed inadmissible prior convictions constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Allegretti
  340 F.2d 254· 7th Cir.· 1964-12-22 ·cited 36×
• United States v. Guido
  251 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1958-01-03 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting testimony about money found in the defendant's safety deposit box, which was later stricken.
• Brown v. United States
  380 F.2d 477· 10th Cir.· 1967-07-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial because a clear and strong admonition to the jury cured any prejudice from the inadmissible testimony.
• United States v. Paoli
  229 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-10 ·cited 32×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession as evidence against Paoli was reversible error because it constituted inadmissible hearsay, and the jury's admonition to disregard it was ineffective.
• Winebrenner v. United States
  147 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1945-02-14 ·cited 31×
  The dissenting judge believes the conviction should not be reversed based on the majority's reasoning regarding jury instructions.
• City OF Cleveland v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.
  624 F.2d 749· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that pervasive misconduct by the City's counsel in repeatedly referring to the defendant's size and insurance coverage prejudiced the jury, requiring a new trial on all issues.
• Alberta E. Ailer v. State
  114 So. 2d 348· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-08-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a prosecutor's remark to the jury, stating the defendant had committed abortions for years, was improper and prejudicial, and the trial court's admonition was insufficient to cure the harm.
• Robinson v. State
  438 So. 2d 8· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-03-09 ·cited 27×
  Donald Ray Robinson appeals his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to question jurors about exposure to prejudicial newspaper articles published after jury selection and by improperly limiting cross-examination of a key prosecution witness.
• United States v. Reynaldo Gilberto Jiminez-Badilla
  434 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause and the seizures were reasonable, and that a mistrial was not warranted by a witness's brief, unadmitted reference to suppressed evidence.
• Branch v. State
  212 So. 2d 29· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-05-01 ·cited 26×
  Horace Branch and Dale Kelley, a police chief and patrolman, were convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. On appeal, they challenged the denial of change of venue and Branch challenged the admission of Kelley's confession that implicated him, as well as contending
• Courtney v. United States
  390 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1968-03-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of certain testimony was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the Mann Act convictions. The court also considered the obstruction of justice conviction separately.
• Lawrence v. United States
  357 F.2d 434· 10th Cir.· 1966-03-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the improper admission of a co-defendant's attorney's statement, even with a subsequent admonition to the jury, was not harmless error because the statement was highly prejudicial and central to a material issue.
• United States v. Smith
  403 F.2d 74· 6th Cir.· 1968-11-20 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial judge's admonition to the jury to disregard a witness's statement about the defendant's prior penitentiary confinement was insufficient to cure the prejudice, resulting in an unfair trial.
• King v. United States
  576 F.2d 432· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the sentence and the denial of the motion to disqualify the judge.
• United States v. Cline
  570 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal, admitting photographs and hearsay statements, or in refusing to grant a mistrial.
• United States v. Powell
  564 F.2d 256· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a conspiracy to distribute heroin, and that amending the indictment's date and admitting evidence were not errors.
• Ulloa v. State
  486 So. 2d 1373· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-04-15 ·cited 19×
  Michael Ulloa, convicted of second-degree murder in 1982 and having his conviction affirmed on direct appeal in 1983, sought post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing that the trial court's allowing the jury to separate for a weekend during de
• United States v. Carter
  430 F.2d 1278· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to admonish the jury not to discuss the case, in taking judicial notice of the jurisdiction of Lowry Air Force Base, or in allowing a knife exhibit to remain visible after it was excluded.
• Aaron v. United States
  397 F.2d 584· 5th Cir.· 1968-07-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper cross-examination question about an illicit affair was harmless error because the defendant's guilt was clear and the jury was instructed to disregard it.
• Beulah B. Crowell v. Merrill Fink
  167 So. 2d 614· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-09-24 ·cited 17×
  The court held that an isolated, inadvertent mention of insurance by a witness during cross-examination, which was not likely to unfairly prejudice the jury, did not constitute reversible error, especially when the trial court offered to admonish the jury and the offer was declin
• United States v. Largo
  346 F.2d 253· 7th Cir.· 1965-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial judge's insufficient inquiry into potential juror prejudice from newspaper articles constituted reversible error, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Escamilla
  666 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial or new trial because a government agent's inaccurate and prejudicial statement had a significant possibility of impacting the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Carlucci
  288 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Rosalba Solivan
  937 F.2d 1146· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument, which appealed to the jury's emotions and prejudices regarding the drug problem, constituted reversible error because they deprived the defendant of a fair trial and were not cured by the subsequent admonition.
• United States v. Williams
  635 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the failure to admonish the jury not to discuss the case when permitted to separate overnight constitutes reversible error, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Corbett
  518 F.2d 113· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search warrant was properly issued and authorized a search of all first-floor bedrooms, and that officers could seize evidence of other crimes found during a lawful search. The court also found no reversible error in informing the jury of the defendant's p
• Dean v. State
  83 So. 2d 777· Fla.· 1955-12-07 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder but vacated the sentence, finding it illegal. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that any alleged errors during the trial were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Dixon
  913 F.2d 1305· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial was not justified by manifest necessity, and therefore, retrial of the defendants is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Sotola v. State
  436 So. 2d 1001· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-08-04 ·cited 8×
  Michael Sotola appeals his murder and armed robbery conviction, challenging the trial court's decision to replace a juror who admitted reading newspaper accounts about the case during jury deliberations with an alternate juror. This case addresses whether Florida rules permit sub
• United States v. Kidd
  446 F.2d 1385· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a specific jury instruction was sufficient to cure any prejudice from a witness's testimonial references to the appellant's arrests.
• United States v. Henson
  365 F.2d 282· 6th Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the variance between the indictment charging one conspiracy and the proof showing multiple conspiracies was not prejudicial, and that the trial court's admonition to the jury was sufficient to cure any error regarding inadmissible testimony.
• United States v. Richardson
  817 F.2d 886· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the District Court's failure to repeat the jury admonition not to discuss the case was not reversible error, as the initial admonition was given, the trial was short, and no improper contact was alleged.
• Frank v. Brookhart
  877 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for habeas corpus relief, as the state courts' factual findings were supported by the record and the petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice from alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, o
• United States v. Ardis Ray Cash
  499 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1974-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while some prosecutorial questions were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial due to prompt judicial admonitions and overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Wright
  491 F.2d 942· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the hearsay statements of Wright regarding his suppliers, when used to implicate Stubblefield and Crawford, were unduly prejudicial and warranted reversal of their convictions.
• United States v. McCOY
  472 F.2d 704· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prosecutor's improper questioning about prior convictions, when cured by a clear jury admonition and overwhelming evidence of guilt, constitutes harmless error. However, convictions for offenses a defendant did not participate in must be reversed.
• United States v. Fabio
  394 F.2d 132· 4th Cir.· 1968-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• Baiocchi v. United States
  333 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks, while improper, were not reversible error given the context, provocation by defense counsel, and the trial court's admonition to the jury. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1005, as
• Reynaldo Andres Diaz v. State
  435 So. 2d 911· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-07-20 ·cited 5×
  The net worth method of proof is permissible in tax evasion cases even when the taxpayer's books appear adequate, provided the government investigates leads and proves willfulness.
• Futch v. State
  420 So. 2d 905· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-10-19 ·cited 4×
  Futch petitioned for habeas corpus claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain trial errors on appeal. The court denied the petition, holding that the trial court lacked authority to consider such claims and that the alleged errors were either unsu
• United States v. Taylor
  605 F.2d 1177· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial after a witness's ambiguous remark about a prior case.