Adverse Inference From Failure To Call Witness

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

• Gass v. United States
  416 F.2d 767· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-29 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the admission of slides containing smears was proper, the use of a prior conviction for impeachment was permissible, and the prosecutor's closing argument remarks did not constitute plain error.
• McCLANAHAN v. United States
  230 F.2d 919· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-16 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions for fraud and conspiracy, and that the jury instructions and prosecutorial comments were proper.
• United States v. Eloy Joseph Romero and Ralph John Visconti
  249 F.2d 371· 2d Cir.· 1957-11-18 ·cited 75×
  The court held that questioning veniremen about capital punishment was proper, a search incident to a lawful arrest was valid, and calling a witness who refused to testify was permissible given jury instructions.
• United States v. Archer Parr
  516 F.2d 458· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of perjury, that the questions asked were material, and that the prosecutor's closing argument did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Ploof
  464 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-03 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in jury selection, jury instructions, or in convicting the appellants for receiving and concealing a stolen vehicle, nor in charging multiple conspiracy counts.
• Martinez v. State
  478 So. 2d 871· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-11-20 ·cited 38×
  Roberto Martinez appealed his convictions for false imprisonment, grand theft, and burglary, arguing that the trial court violated his right to effective assistance of counsel by prohibiting his attorney from arguing that the State's failure to call a codefendant (who was listed
• Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Perry
  326 F.2d 921· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding the railroad's photographs, giving an instruction on the inference from failure to call witnesses, or admitting mortality tables.
• United States v. Chapman
  435 F.2d 1245· 5th Cir.· 1970-12-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the prosecutor's elicitation of the defendant's silence at the time of arrest and the cross-examination regarding the failure to call companions were not prejudicial errors.
• United States v. Stahl
  616 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, specifically appealing to class prejudice and making unsupported statements, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Cromling v. The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co.
  327 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1963-11-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of a physician's letter and the trial judge's prejudicial conduct towards counsel warranted a new trial.
• Harold C. & Margaret I. Kean v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  469 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a beneficial owner of stock, even if not a shareholder of record, is considered a "shareholder" for Subchapter S election consent purposes, and that the District Director abused his discretion in refusing an extension to file consents when reasonable cause exi
• Shurman v. United States
  233 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that prejudicial comments by the trial judge regarding the appellant's entrapment defense constituted reversible error.
• McKENNA v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  729 F.2d 783· D.C. Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court's findings of no sex discrimination or retaliation were not clearly erroneous, and while an APA claim is not barred by Title VII, the plaintiff failed to prove her APA claim.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stark
  525 F.2d 422· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge should have had the authority to sequester discriminatee witnesses, and failure to do so was an abuse of discretion, but this did not automatically warrant denial of enforcement.
• Stoumen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  208 F.2d 903· 3d Cir.· 1953-12-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that funds deposited into secret bank accounts by a partner, derived from sales of partnership property, constitute partnership income taxable to the other partner, even if the other partner was unaware of the accounts or the transactions.
• Cowens v. Siemens-Elema AB & Elema Schonander, Inc.
  837 F.2d 817· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert and technician testimony due to dissimilar conditions and that the jury instructions and admission of evidence were proper.
• United States v. Williams
  739 F.2d 297· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to call a witness and the admission of testimony about the defendant's nickname 'Fast Eddie' constituted reversible error.
• Bayshore v. State
  437 So. 2d 198· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-09-13 ·cited 18×
  Thomas Bayshore was convicted of burglary and grand theft based on victim eyewitness testimony. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that the prosecutor improperly created and then attacked an alibi defense by eliciting statements from the a
• United States v. Dailey
  524 F.2d 911· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 18×
• Moore v. Wyrick
  760 F.2d 884· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 16×
  The prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments suggesting an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to call corroborating defense witnesses were not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial or violate due process.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Massachusetts MacHine AND Stamping
  578 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Company did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain, as it had a good faith doubt of the Union's majority status following relocation. However, the court affirmed the finding of a Section 8(a)(1) violation.
• Williams v. United States
  394 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the co-defendant's statement was properly admitted for impeachment.
• Gafford v. Trans-Texas Airways
  299 F.2d 60· 6th Cir.· 1962-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the inference from the defendant's failure to call a witness, as the witness's testimony would have been cumulative.
• YAW v. United States
  228 F.2d 382· 9th Cir.· 1955-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for aiding and abetting the acquisition of marihuana cigarettes.
• Industries v. Panelfab Int'l Corp.
  529 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the agency agreement was ambiguous, allowing parole evidence, and that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings regarding breach of contract and impossibility of performance.
• United States v. Higginbotham
  451 F.2d 1283· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the jury was entitled to believe the arresting officer's testimony regarding possession of the firearm.
• United States v. Gipson
  593 F.2d 7· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prosecutor's questioning and closing argument regarding the defendant's failure to call alibi witnesses did not constitute plain error, as the defendant's substantial rights were not affected by overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Taylor v. Canadian Nat'l Ry. Co.
  301 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1962-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's verdict, as reduced by remittitur, was not excessive and that the trial court properly refused certain jury instructions.
• United Overseas Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Medluck Compania Maviera, S.A.
  785 F.2d 1320· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-02 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's apportionment of fault and damages, holding that the findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that established legal principles regarding unrepaired damages and the effect of temporary repairs were correctly applied.
• Lasprilla v. State
  826 So. 2d 396· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-07-24 ·cited 5×
  Julio Enrique Lasprilla was convicted of theft after a robbery at gunpoint. On appeal, Lasprilla challenged the trial court's decision to sustain the State's objection to defense closing argument that commented on the State's failure to call a witness (Sarah) who was equally avai
• United States v. Viera
  839 F.2d 1113· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's actions did not violate the defendant's rights and that the closing argument regarding an uncalled witness was permissible.
• Saylor v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  723 F.2d 581· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the USDA failed to adequately explain the basis for its determination that Saylor violated the Packers and Stockyards Act, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• Linehan v. Everett
  338 So. 2d 1294· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-10-26 ·cited 4×
  Florence Linehan sued after suffering injuries in two successive accidents on the same day—one involving a truck and another involving an ambulance. The trial court granted judgment for the plaintiffs based on jury verdicts, but the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new
• Mann v. Anderson
  447 F.2d 533· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-12 ·cited 4×
  A six-year-old child is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of Indiana law, and a child can recover for future medical expenses even before emancipation.
• United States v. Tant
  412 F.2d 840· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it is not error for a trial judge to refuse to instruct the jury that reasonable doubt may arise from the lack or failure of evidence.
• Blow v. Compagnie Mar. Belge (Lloyd Royal) S.A.
  395 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1968-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the shipowner's duty to provide a seaworthy vessel is absolute, and the jury was entitled to consider conflicting evidence regarding the stevedore's negligence in its indemnity claim.
• Paul v. State
  110 So. 2d 388· Fla.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 4×
  Voice identification is a sufficient method of identification in rape cases even where facial identification is impossible due to a hood; the evidence independent of the defendant's confession was sufficient to establish all elements of rape beyond a reasonable doubt; and the con
• Clayton v. United States
  152 F.2d 402· 9th Cir.· 1945-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments on a co-defendant's failure to testify were permissible inferences given their close relationship and the defense's prior indication that she might testify.
• United States v. Walker Co.
  152 F.2d 612· 3d Cir.· 1945-12-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments on the defendants' failure to produce a key witness or document were proper, as such failure allows for an inference of unfavorable evidence.
• Jean-Marie v. State
  993 So. 2d 1160· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-11-05 ·cited 3×
  Christopher Jean-Marie was convicted of manslaughter after a stabbing death. He appealed arguing the trial court improperly prohibited defense counsel from commenting during closing argument that the state's failure to call the investigating detective as a witness suggested the d
• Reyes Herrera Molina v. State
  71 So. 3d 234· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-10-12 ·cited 2×
  Reyes Herrera Molina was convicted of drug trafficking based primarily on an undercover officer's identification. The court reversed the conviction because the trial court improperly prevented the defense from commenting on the State's failure to call a confidential informant who
• David v. MacNaughton and Virginia R. MacNaughton
  888 F.2d 418· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the stock was transferable and not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture prior to 1981, and that the government's argument regarding a missing stock restrictive agreement was improper but harmless error.
• O'Tell v. NEW York
  236 F.2d 472· 2d Cir.· 1956-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly ordered the $2500 paid for the release to be credited against the $5000 judgment, as the jury's verdict was based on instructions to disregard the release.
• Cmty. Asphalt Corp. v. Bassols
  13 So. 3d 538· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-07-01
  Community Asphalt Corporation and Alfredo Martinez appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial based on defense counsel's closing argument. The appellate court reversed, holding that the challenged comments were permissible arguments about lack of evidence rather than imp
• Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp.
  929 F.2d 1147· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-11
  The court held that the plaintiff, a medical center, was neither a party to nor a third-party beneficiary of the contracts for computer hardware and software, thus lacking standing to sue for breach of contract or warranty.
• Araujo v. State
  452 So. 2d 54· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-05-22
  Alberto Araujo appeals his convictions for trafficking in and unlawful sale of marijuana. The Florida appellate court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant's failure to call a fugitive co-defendant as a