Cross-Examination Of Character Witnesses

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

• Myres v. United States
  174 F.2d 329· 8th Cir.· 1949-05-13 ·cited 128×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty for willful attempts to defeat and evade federal income taxes, and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial errors regarding evidence or jury instructions.
• Fine v. State
  70 Fla. 412· Fla.· 1915-11-19 ·cited 119×
  Herbert Fine was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for shooting Harry Harmon in Ft. Lauderdale. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in prohibiting cross-examination of character witnesses about specific rumors or incident
• Cornelius v. State
  49 So. 2d 332· Fla.· 1950-12-12 ·cited 107×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for manslaughter, holding that the jury was justified in rejecting the defendant's self-defense claim. The court also found that while the admission of certain rebuttal evidence was technically an error, it was not harmful or prejud
• Kruse v. State
  483 So. 2d 1383· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-05 ·cited 88×
  Frank Kruse appeals his convictions for lewd and indecent assault on a child, challenging the admission of expert testimony regarding Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) in the victim. While the court upheld the admissibility of the PTSD expert testimony, it reversed and remand
• United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez
  547 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing improper cross-examination of character witnesses and by displaying hostility towards defense counsel, which collectively deprived the appellants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Dibrizzi
  393 F.2d 642· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-26 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of criminal intent for embezzlement of union funds and that the prosecutor's conduct did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Williams
  738 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while certain cross-examination of character witnesses was improper, it constituted harmless error, and pre-indictment delay did not violate due process as the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice.
• United States v. Gosser
  339 F.2d 102· 6th Cir.· 1964-12-08 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in ruling entrapment was not an issue as a matter of law and that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts.
• United States v. Alker
  260 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-10 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of willful tax evasion, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or in its cross-examination of a character witness.
• United States v. McGUIRE
  744 F.2d 1197· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a specific good faith jury instruction and in instructing the jury that bank loan file documents constituted 'bank statements' under 18 U.S.C. § 1005, these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The cour
• Bratcher v. United States
  149 F.2d 742· 4th Cir.· 1945-05-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for evading military service by presenting himself in an abnormal physical condition due to drug use was valid, and no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• Krogmann v. United States
  225 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1955-08-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in venue rulings and in excluding certain testimony, requiring a new trial for some counts. The court also found error in the handling of prejudicial publicity.
• United States v. Canniff
  521 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-13 ·cited 43×
  The court held that while a youthful offender adjudication is generally inadmissible for impeachment, the prosecutor's attempt to use it did not require reversal due to defense counsel opening the door and the jury never learning of the adjudication. The court also held that the
• United States v. Conforti
  200 F.2d 365· 7th Cir.· 1952-11-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the defendant had a right to demand the identity of an informant who participated in the alleged criminal transactions, the record did not show such a demand was made, and thus no error occurred. The court also held that the cross-examination of characte
• United States v. Benter
  457 F.2d 1174· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's repeated references to the defendant as 'Honest Phil' were improper, they did not constitute reversible error given the ample evidence of guilt and the defendant's own proven lie.
• 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. Kelner
  534 F.2d 1020· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-09 ·cited 37×
  The court reluctantly concurred that the defendant's actions fell within the literal terms of the statute, despite concerns about congressional intent.
• United States v. Cummings
  468 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a prosecutor's argument improperly suggested the jury convict based on the indictment process rather than evidence, requiring reversal. It also found certain jury instructions flawed regarding the presumption of innocence.
• United States v. Wells
  525 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellants' allegations of error were without merit and their convictions for receiving and disposing of stolen vehicles were affirmed.
• Egger v. United States
  509 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to object to alleged constitutional errors at trial generally waives the right to raise them in a collateral attack, unless the errors are so fundamental as to deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Quinn L. Polsinelli
  649 F.2d 793· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant's character witnesses, which assumed the defendant's guilt of the charged offenses, was improper and prejudicial error.
• United States v. Thurman Jeff West
  460 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the seizure of the sawed-off shotgun was lawful under the plain view doctrine, and the prosecutor's cross-examination of the character witness was permissible with adequate jury instructions.
• United States v. Phillips
  217 F.2d 435· 7th Cir.· 1954-12-02 ·cited 30×
  A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a defense theory, such as reliance on advice of counsel, even if the supporting evidence comes from the prosecution's witnesses, and the trial court cannot refuse such an instruction solely because the defendant did not present his
• Roberson v. United States
  237 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1956-10-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly allowing cross-examination of the defendant's character witnesses regarding prior arrests and convictions without proper safeguards, and by failing to conduct such inquiries outside the presence of the j
• United States v. Michelson
  165 F.2d 732· 2d Cir.· 1948-01-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the offer to bribe occurred in a different district than the trial venue, requiring reversal of that count, but affirmed the conviction on the first count.
• United States v. White
  887 F.2d 267· D.C. Cir.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that admitting privileged attorney-client communications was not harmless error, requiring reversal of White's conviction, and that venue for Finotti's bribery conviction was improper in the District of Columbia.
• United States v. Franklin
  471 F.2d 1299· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while cross-examining character witnesses about prior incidents using the "have you heard?" form is permissible, cross-examining the defendant directly about specific prior acts for which he was not convicted is improper and prejudicial.
• Mannix v. United States
  140 F.2d 250· 4th Cir.· 1944-01-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the cross-examination of character witnesses regarding rumors of specific acts was permissible to test credibility, and refusing a jury instruction that character evidence alone could create reasonable doubt was proper.
• Gross v. United States
  394 F.2d 216· 8th Cir.· 1968-05-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the prosecution's cross-examination of the defendants' character witnesses, without a proper showing of good faith basis and without adequate cautionary instructions to the jury, constituted prejudicial error.
• Kasper v. United States
  225 F.2d 275· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for tax evasion was supported by substantial evidence and that alleged errors in evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and prosecutorial misconduct did not affect substantial rights or result in a miscarriage of justice.
• United States v. Grady
  665 F.2d 831· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Miranda warnings were not required for on-the-scene questioning of a suspect who was not in custody, and that cross-examination of a character witness about the defendant's prior arrests was permissible.
• Awkard v. United States
  352 F.2d 641· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine character witnesses about the defendant's prior arrests and convictions, as this was unduly prejudicial and an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Arnulfo Salazar-Gaeta
  447 F.2d 468· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the search of the automobile and the admission of evidence discovered were lawful, and other claims of error were without merit.
• United States v. Oshatz
  912 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the majority's rule excluding guilt-assuming hypothetical questions to opinion character witnesses is overly restrictive and ignores the discretion of trial judges.
• United States v. MacHado
  457 F.2d 1372· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court's admission of certain cross-examination questions, even if improper, constituted harmless error due to proper jury instructions and overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Abe Giddins & Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc.
  273 F.2d 843· 2d Cir.· 1960-01-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing cross-examination of character witnesses regarding disparaging rumors, and that sentencing under the subornation of perjury statute was proper.
• United States v. Polack
  442 F.2d 446· 3d Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that comments made by the prosecution regarding the defendant's judicial position, cross-examination of character witnesses, and jury instructions on willfulness did not constitute reversible error.
• McCOWAN v. United States
  376 F.2d 122· 9th Cir.· 1967-04-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on both counts of mail fraud and obstruction of correspondence, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding prosecutorial conduct or the superseding indictment.
• Michaels v. State
  429 So. 2d 338· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-03-04 ·cited 14×
  Michael Michaels was convicted of manslaughter for killing David Traas by punching him twice. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction due to three significant trial errors: improper cross-examination questions about post-crime violence, admission of evidence
• United States v. Kraude
  467 F.2d 37· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 was supported by sufficient evidence and that procedural errors were either waived or harmless.
• United States v. Wells
  437 F.2d 1144· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing cross-examination of character witnesses with indictments, denying a motion to suppress evidence from an illegal search, or admitting an oral confession.
• Gandy v. United States
  386 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecutor's arguments and cross-examination questions, despite some improprieties in form, did not constitute reversible error given the context and jury instructions.
• United States v. Canas
  595 F.2d 73· 1st Cir.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct, duplicity in the indictment, and jury instructions did not warrant reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. McCOLLOM
  664 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of trial error and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and affirmed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence.
• United States v. Tempesta
  587 F.2d 931· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for filing false tax returns was supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial and post-trial rulings, including those concerning preindictment delay, admissibility of evidence, and jury instructions, did not constitute rev
• Kilgore v. United States
  467 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the government could generally cross-examine character witnesses about community awareness of a taxpayer's alleged misconduct, the specific questions proffered were improper hypothetical questions and thus properly excluded by the district court.
• Wilcox v. United States
  387 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court committed plain error by permitting the cross-examination of character witnesses regarding the defendant's prior arrests, as this violated the standard set in Michelson v. United States and prejudiced the defendant.
• United States v. Gruber
  123 F.2d 307· 2d Cir.· 1941-11-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting wiretapping, and that the trial court's rulings on evidence and cross-examination were not prejudicial.
• Carpenter v. State
  664 So. 2d 1167· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-12-27 ·cited 10×
  Carpenter was charged with second-degree murder after shooting and killing Brian Soini. While claiming self-defense, the prosecutor asked Carpenter whether he had told another person that he shot Soini because he was "sick and tired of the crap." Carpenter denied it, and the pros
• United States v. James B. Frost (89-5144/5145) & Charles L. Griffin (89-5146/5147)
  914 F.2d 756· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy, bribery, and misapplication of bank funds, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings.