Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

1,106 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 13 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Kijewski v. State
  773 So. 2d 124· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-12-20 ·cited 33×
  Michael Kijewski was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced under both the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA) and the Habitual Felony Offender Statute. The court remanded for resentencing under the PRRA only, and rejected Kijewski's argument that Apprendi v.
• United States v. Perez
  870 F.2d 1222· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence or in its rulings on witness testimony and government arguments, and that any potential errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Duncan Peder McKENZIE, Jr. v. Risley
  842 F.2d 1525· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the jury instructions were so fundamentally flawed and riddled with constitutional errors that they rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, making harmless error analysis inappropriate.
• United States v. Currency
  626 F.2d 11· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-14 ·cited 33×
  Forfeiture proceedings are criminal in nature and require constitutional protections afforded in criminal cases, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Sockwell v. State
  123 So. 3d 585· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-12-28 ·cited 32×
  Camille Sockwell appealed two indirect criminal contempt orders arising from truancy court proceedings in Charlotte County. The court reversed the contempt orders, holding that the judge violated due process by simultaneously serving as both prosecutor and judge, and failed to pr
• Campbell v. State
  906 So. 2d 293· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-04-29 ·cited 32×
  Kevin Campbell appealed his conviction for RICO violations and cocaine conspiracy, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence from a 1997 apartment search and wiretap. The appellate court initially found the trial court erred in applying res judicata
• United States v. Reynolds
  900 F.2d 1000· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1 is constitutional as applied to a conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846, and that a defendant cannot receive a reduction for acceptance of responsibility if they have also obstructed justice.
• United States v. Barnerd
  887 F.2d 841· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not violate the separation of powers, due process, or the Presentment Clause, and affirmed the sentence imposed.
• Ortega v. O'Leary
  843 F.2d 258· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request to testify and failing to ascertain a voluntary waiver, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the cumulative nature of the proposed testimony and the overall strength of the prose
• United States v. McINTYRE
  836 F.2d 467· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting partially inaudible tape recordings and transcripts, nor in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. However, the court reversed the conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Blevins Popcorn Co.
  659 F.2d 1173· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 32×
  The court concurred in the result because the Special Master apparently applied an erroneous standard of proof, necessitating remand.
• United States v. Lewis
  338 F.2d 137· 6th Cir.· 1964-11-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial based on recanted testimony, nor did the judge's extensive questioning constitute reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Brown
  872 F.2d 385· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment or in admitting expert testimony and transcripts. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove one appellant's guilt of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Russell
  532 F.2d 1063· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-30 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the photographic identification procedure used for Mrs. Fiorenzo was impermissibly suggestive, creating a substantial likelihood of misidentification, requiring reversal. The court also held that Mr. Johnson's identification, while suggestive, could be admitte
• Dade Carnley v. State
  82 Fla. 282· Fla.· 1921-10-18 ·cited 31×
  Dade Carnley was convicted of grand larceny for stealing hogs, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the State failed to prove an essential element of the crime—that the stolen property was valued at twenty dollars or more. The court held that essential elements of a cri
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2005-2. In re Standard Jury Instructions In Crim. Cases-Penalty Phase of Cap. Trials
  22 So. 3d 17· Fla.· 2009-10-29 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized amendments to Standard Jury Instruction 7.11 for penalty phase capital cases to clarify jurors' role, reduce confusion about burdens of proof, and address deficiencies identified in the ABA Death Penalty Assessment Report regarding juror misco
• Wyatt v. State
  641 So. 2d 355· Fla.· 1994-05-05 ·cited 30×
  Thomas Wyatt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the May 1988 killing of Cathy Nydegger during a crime spree in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, though it found two of the aggravating factors were unsupport
• United States v. Scott
  678 F.2d 606· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to import and possess marihuana for five appellants, but insufficient for the others.
• Starchk v. Wittenberg
  411 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-31 ·cited 30×
  An order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt must be based on sworn allegations, and insufficient evidence renders a conviction invalid.
• Morgan v. State
  415 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1982-03-18 ·cited 30×
  Floyd Morgan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for stabbing fellow inmate Joe Saylor to death in a Florida prison in 1977. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Morgan's arguments that the trial court committed reversi
• United States ex rel. Frank Stachulak v. Coughlin
  520 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 30×
  Due process requires that the state prove a person is sexually dangerous beyond a reasonable doubt for commitment under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.
• United States v. Eichberg
  439 F.2d 620· D.C. Cir.· 1971-01-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury's verdict on the issue of responsibility must stand when expert evidence presents a classic question for the jury.
• Amaya v. United States
  373 F.2d 197· 10th Cir.· 1967-02-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the use of paid informers is permissible evidence and that the jury instructions on possession were adequate.
• United States v. Schipani
  362 F.2d 825· 2d Cir.· 1966-06-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove willful tax evasion beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the admission of the 1943 prison statement and the Jencks Act procedure did not constitute grounds for reversal.
• Reynolds v. State
  251 So. 3d 811· Fla.· 2018-04-05 ·cited 29×
  Michael Reynolds challenged his death sentences under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments following Hurst v. State, arguing that jury instructions failed to require unanimous findings on aggravating factors and sufficient grounds for death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the deni
• In re Hill
  715 F.3d 284· 11th Cir.· 2013-04-22 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the state of Georgia should not be allowed to execute Warren Lee Hill, a mentally retarded individual, despite procedural bars under AEDPA. The dissent emphasizes that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the execution of mentally retard
• United States v. Vreeken
  803 F.2d 1085· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that Kurt Vreeken waived his rule of speciality claim by failing to raise it timely, and that other alleged errors, including the exclusion of evidence and jury instructions, were either harmless or within the trial court's discretion.
• Hatheway v. Secretary OF the Army
  641 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a court-martial conviction may be deemed void for fundamental constitutional defects, but allegations regarding compliance with surveillance statutes are insufficient for collateral review. It also held that prosecuting homosexual acts under Article 125 is per
• Johnson v. State
  44 So. 3d 51· Fla.· 2010-01-14 ·cited 28×
  Paul Beasley Johnson, a death row inmate, challenged his 1988 death sentences based on prosecutorial misconduct involving a jailhouse informant whose testimony was impermissibly elicited in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Florida Supreme Court held that the
• Lavarity Robertson v. State
  611 So. 2d 1228· Fla.· 1993-01-07 ·cited 28×
  Lavarity Robertson was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and armed burglary in connection with a November 1988 shooting death of two victims during a robbery on a Miami causeway. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions but vacated his death
• Scott v. State
  581 So. 2d 887· Fla.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 28×
  Bradley Scott was convicted of the 1978 murder of a 12-year-old girl and sentenced to death, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and vacated the conviction due to a seven-year delay in prosecution that violated due process and circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guil
• United States v. Williams
  897 F.2d 1430· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the motion for mistrial.
• McKinley Dudley v. Duckworth
  854 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The admission of testimony regarding anonymous threats against a witness, without any evidence linking the defendant to the threats, was of such magnitude that it denied the petitioner fundamental fairness and violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Pinto
  850 F.2d 927· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding that while prosecutorial tactics were concerning and potentially improper, they did not rise to the level of reversible error or substantial prejudice to the defendants.
• United States v. Solomon
  825 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that jury instructions adequately covered specific intent and willfulness, and that the admission of personal tax returns was proper. However, an increased sentence upon retrial was presumptively vindictive due to lack of objective justification in the record.
• United States v. Richard W. (Dick) Rylander, Sr.
  714 F.2d 996· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 28×
  The majority reversed the conviction, finding the defendant was entitled to a jury trial and that the court failed to adequately explain the pitfalls of self-representation.
• United States v. Dohm
  618 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 28×
• Speigner v. Jago
  603 F.2d 1208· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 28×
  A state court criminal conviction is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause if it lacks any evidentiary support for a crucial element of the crime, and such a claim is reviewable in federal habeas corpus.
• United States v. Andros
  484 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the financial ability to pay his taxes on the date in question.
• United States v. Clizer
  464 F.2d 121· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the conviction on Count I was supported by sufficient evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and that an erroneous jury instruction did not prejudice the defendant. The conviction on Count III was reversed due to insufficient evidence.
• Ricard v. State
  181 So. 2d 677· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-01-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants were not negligent as a matter of law, and thus, the case should not have been submitted to the jury.
• Beber v. State
  887 So. 2d 1248· Fla.· 2004-11-10 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision sustaining Rick Beber's capital sexual battery conviction based solely on a child victim's out-of-court hearsay statements that contradicted the child's trial testimony. The Court held that prior inc
• United States v. Hopkins
  916 F.2d 207· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy, concealment, misapplication, and false entries, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or admitting evidence of a prior bad act.
• United States v. Brown
  461 F.2d 134· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the post-lineup viewing of a photograph of that lineup by a witness, even without defense counsel present, does not violate the Sixth Amendment if the lineup itself was fair and counsel was present. Furthermore, the witness's prior hesitancy in identifying sus
• Johnson v. State
  994 So. 2d 960· Fla.· 2008-09-18 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with felony DUI has the right to a jury trial in the second phase of a bifurcated proceeding to determine prior convictions, and that such a right cannot be waived without a proper colloquy between the trial judge and defend
• United States v. Villegas
  911 F.2d 623· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Rodrigo Rendon but insufficient evidence to convict Jairo Rendon of conspiracy. The court also addressed Villegas' sentence reduction request.
• United States v. Lynn
  856 F.2d 430· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly circumscribing cross-examination regarding a witness's polygraph examination and by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction, thereby impairing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Olmstead
  832 F.2d 642· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the absence of a specific definition for 'reasonable doubt' in jury instructions is not error, as the term has a self-evident meaning. It also held that the failure to give a specific accomplice testimony instruction and the delayed disclosure of exculpatory e
• Willard v. People of the State OF Cal.
  812 F.2d 461· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions on aiding and abetting, while incorrect under state law, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not violate federal due process. The court also declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim as it was not r
• United States v. Accetturo
  783 F.2d 382· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Bail Reform Act is not facially unconstitutional for failing to contain a specific time limitation on pretrial detention.