Bruton Rule

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

• United States v. Burreson
  643 F.2d 1344· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 68×
  The court held that joinder of defendants and charges was proper, severance was not required, and the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction. The court affirmed convictions but remanded for correction of Laraneta's sentences on specific counts.
• United States v. Goodman
  605 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court also found that limitations
• United States v. Arroyo-Angulo
  580 F.2d 1137· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 68×
  The court held that in camera proceedings were justified by compelling security needs and did not violate defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, and that the use of a cooperating witness's agreement was permissible.
• United States v. Glasser
  443 F.2d 994· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-21 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed Glasser's conviction on the conspiracy count but reversed his convictions on the extortion counts, finding that while some evidentiary errors occurred, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence for the conspiracy charge.
• United States v. Carmine Persico
  425 F.2d 1375· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying a mistrial due to publicity, limiting cross-examination of witnesses for safety reasons, admitting evidence of other crimes, or denying dismissal based on repeated retrials and delay.
• United States ex rel. Lorenzo Catanzaro v. Mancusi
  404 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-02 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper because the confessions were voluntary, the search was not illegal, and the eyewitness's perjury did not violate due process.
• United States v. Danzey
  594 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 67×
  The court held that evidence of similar acts was admissible to prove identity and that a witness's identification testimony, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient to support a conviction.
• Ignacio v. People OF the Territory OF Guam
  413 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 67×
  The court held that while the admission of co-defendants' extrajudicial statements at a joint trial may violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, such a violation can be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming. The court also held that the appe
• United States v. Catalano
  491 F.2d 268· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-21 ·cited 66×
• United States v. Germaine Haili
  443 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for smuggling, illegal transportation, and conspiracy to smuggle and transport marijuana were affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• United States v. Yarbrough
  852 F.2d 1522· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 64×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the pretrial, trial, or sentencing phases.
• United States v. Lochan
  674 F.2d 960· 1st Cir.· 1982-04-01 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, the evidence was sufficient to prove knowing possession, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions.
• Farina v. State
  679 So. 2d 1151· Fla.· 1996-04-18 ·cited 63×
  Anthony Farina was convicted of first-degree murder in a fatal Taco Bell robbery and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and non-capital sentences but vacated the death sentence because the trial court erroneously excluded for cause a qualified p
• United States v. Gambrill
  449 F.2d 1148· D.C. Cir.· 1971-07-29 ·cited 63×
  Convictions based on eyewitness identification following impermissibly suggestive photographic procedures must be set aside if there is a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and no independent source for the identification.
• United States v. Tavelman
  650 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, searches were lawful, and codefendants' statements were admissible. However, special parole terms imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 846 were improper.
• United States v. Skeeter Cyphers and David Willman
  553 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-21 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a mistrial declared due to a witness's inadvertent statement, despite one defendant's objection to a separate trial, did not violate double jeopardy principles because the mistrial was manifestly necessary and the defendant retained primary control over the pr
• 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. Marin
  669 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-18 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the stop of the defendants' car was supported by probable cause, the search of the car and the bag was lawful due to consent and lack of privacy expectation, and the redacted statement did not violate confrontation rights.
• United States v. Hartley E. Greenleaf, Jr.
  692 F.2d 182· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for mail fraud and RICO were not clearly and grossly unjust, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or in its jury instructions. Consecutive sentences for RICO and mail fraud were permissible.
• United States v. Coppola
  479 F.2d 1153· 10th Cir.· 1973-06-04 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the introduction of prior statements of a witness who repudiated them, the persistent questioning of a witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, and the admission of hearsay statements from co-conspirators made after the conspiracy's completion were p
• Kroll v. United States
  433 F.2d 1282· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-02 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not defective, affirming the judgments of the district court.
• United States v. Gleeson
  411 F.2d 1091· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-29 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict all appellants, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings by the trial court did not constitute an abuse of discretion or reversible error.
• United States v. Mulligan
  488 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-09 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the searches and seizures were lawful and the admissions of the defendants were properly admitted at trial.
• United States v. Figueroa-Paz
  468 F.2d 1055· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-20 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the denial of the appellant's motions to sever and for acquittal was not prejudicial error, and the wife's testimony was properly admitted, leading to an affirmation of the conviction.
• United States v. Guajardo-Melendez
  401 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1968-08-09 ·cited 58×
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's hearsay statement implicating the defendant, even with cautionary instructions, constituted reversible error, denying a fair trial. The court also found that a prosecutor's misstatement of evidence during closing arguments was prejudi
• United States v. Evelio Mota and Juan Flores
  598 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 57×
  The court held that a defendant's amnesia does not per se render them incompetent to stand trial, and that severance is not required when defenses are merely antagonistic rather than irreconcilable.
• United States v. Sherlock
  962 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the judge's expulsion of the defendant's family members from the courtroom was improper because less drastic measures were not considered or attempted.
• United States v. McCOWN
  711 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.
• United States v. Scheffer
  463 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-22 ·cited 55×
• Grieco v. Meachum
  533 F.2d 713· 1st Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated by the trial court's evidentiary rulings, failure to sever, or alleged misconduct, and affirmed the dismissal of their habeas corpus petitions.
• United States v. Gonzales
  749 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, refusing to make a pretrial determination of Miranda waiver, limiting cross-examination, or denying motions to suppress evidence.
• United States v. Whitaker
  592 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-04 ·cited 53×
  The boarding, stop, and search of the vessel were constitutionally permissible due to probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Williams
  858 F.2d 1218· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Williams of conspiracy to obstruct justice and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying severance motions. However, convictions for both conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy
• United States v. Joseph F. "Joey" Astling
  733 F.2d 1446· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial vindictiveness, continuances, marijuana classification, jury voir dire, severance, admission of extrinsic evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Gaines
  563 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the stop and arrest of the appellants were lawful, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance, excluding prior convictions, or failing to grant a speedy trial.
• Alphonso Cave v. Singletary
  971 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1992-08-26 ·cited 51×
  Alphonso Cave, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, challenged his conviction and sentence through a federal habeas corpus petition raising thirteen claims. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Cave's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and found
• United States v. DiGREGORIO
  605 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1979-08-14 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidence was properly admitted, the Hobbs Act jurisdiction was established, and the trial was not prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct or the handling of multiple conspiracies.
• United States ex rel. Edward Bennett No. H-6720 v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden of E. Corr. Inst., Graterford, Pa
  419 F.2d 599· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the Pennsylvania practice of a preliminary hearing to determine confession voluntariness, followed by jury determination in public, satisfies the Sixth Amendment's public trial requirement.
• United States v. Lopez
  898 F.2d 1505· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 49×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, that the district court did not err in denying severance or motions to suppress, that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless, and that sentencing was proper.
• United States v. Hillegas
  578 F.2d 453· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-14 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the time limits prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act's plan are tolled during the period between the government's dismissal of a complaint and its reinstitution of criminal proceedings by indictment.
• United States v. Wilkins
  659 F.2d 769· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-11 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all three defendants, finding no reversible error in the suppression rulings, evidentiary decisions, prosecutorial comments, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Nasser
  476 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a client's knowing participation in a corrupt bargain with their lawyer can constitute a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
• Baker v. Louie L. Wainwright
  422 F.2d 145· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that joint representation by a single attorney for co-defendants in a joint trial, where evidence implicating one defendant from the other's confession is introduced, creates a conflict of interest that denies effective assistance of counsel, even if the confessing
• Glazerman v. United States
  421 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1970-01-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while some convictions must be reversed due to individual tenure in the conspiracy, others are affirmed, and the admission of co-defendant statements was harmless error. The trial judge's conduct and instructions were not improper.
• United States v. Alvarado
  882 F.2d 645· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of redacted statements from a nontestifying codefendant, where names were replaced by neutral pronouns, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. It also held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for usi
• United States v. Petit
  841 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 is valid even if the substantive offense (possessing stolen goods) was factually impossible because the goods were not actually stolen, as long as the defendants believed they were stolen. The court also held that
• United States v. Dorsey
  819 F.2d 1055· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of extrinsic act evidence and a prosecutor's comment were not reversible error.
• United States v. Ditommaso
  817 F.2d 201· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to import heroin and currency reporting violations, finding no merit in claims of speedy trial denial, prejudicial evidence, extradition violations, improper identification, or illegal sentencing.
• United States v. Wright
  742 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal for Stearns on the conspiracy charge, and that the jury's verdict of conviction on the lesser included offense should be reinstated. The court affirmed all other convictions.
• United States v. Schwanke
  598 F.2d 575· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the government adequately established jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements was permissible when the declarant testified and was subject to cross-examination. However, the court agreed that the