Extrajudicial Statements

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

• State of Fla. ex rel. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. McINTOSH
  340 So. 2d 904· Fla.· 1976-07-30 ·cited 126×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial judge's prior restraint order prohibiting media reporting of inadmissible evidence and restricting extrajudicial statements by attorneys and officials violated the First Amendment. The Court established that while trial judges have inhe
• Rivera v. State
  717 So. 2d 477· Fla.· 1998-06-11 ·cited 121×
  Michael T. Rivera, a death row inmate, challenged his capital conviction and sentence through a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed most of the trial court's denials but reversed the summary denial regarding penalty phase ineffective assistance o
• Peek v. United States
  321 F.2d 934· 9th Cir.· 1963-08-14 ·cited 80×
• In re Adele Halkin
  598 F.2d 176· D.C. Cir.· 1979-01-19 ·cited 73×
  A district court's order restraining parties and counsel from extra-judicial statements about discovery materials is a prior restraint subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny, requiring a showing of substantial harm and no less restrictive alternatives.
• 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. Collins
  552 F.2d 243· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and distribution, that jury instructions were properly handled or waived, and that prior convictions could be used for impeachment.
• Robinson v. United States
  210 F.2d 29· D.C. Cir.· 1954-01-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a severance, nor in admitting evidence with proper jury instructions.
• Levine v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  764 F.2d 590· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that attorneys' speech can be restrained by gag orders to prevent the risk of eliminating a fair trial before an impartial jury.
• United States v. Donald E. Belle. Appeal of Donald Belle
  593 F.2d 487· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 36×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction, violates the Confrontation Clause if it is powerfully incriminating and the jury cannot be expected to disregard it.
• Central South Carolina Chapter v. The Honorable J. Robert Martin, Jr.
  556 F.2d 706· 4th Cir.· 1977-05-17 ·cited 34×
  The court reviewed a petition for certiorari challenging an order compelling a news reporter to testify about information she obtained during her investigation into a civil action.
• Newell Chilton Sells v. United States
  262 F.2d 815· 10th Cir.· 1958-12-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for false statements and contempt, and that procedural and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• Wallace v. Rashkow
  270 So. 2d 743· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-12-19 ·cited 30×
  In this negligence action arising from a multi-vehicle rear-end collision, the trial court admitted a witness's prior inconsistent written statement without instructing the jury on its limited purpose for impeachment only. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that s
• McCULLERS v. State
  143 So. 2d 909· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-07-03 ·cited 29×
  Lois Mary McCullers appeals her manslaughter conviction for killing her husband, challenging the admissibility of expert psychiatric testimony based in substantial part on hearsay statements from third parties. The appellate court reverses, holding that an expert's opinion on san
• United States v. Schmick
  904 F.2d 936· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was timely and that the evidence was sufficient to convict most appellants, but reversed one conviction due to Bruton error.
• Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez
  296 So. 2d 498· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-06-25 ·cited 28×
  Lan-Chile Airlines appeals jury verdicts awarding compensatory and punitive damages to two employees beaten by assailants the airline allegedly hired to discourage union activities. The court affirms the liability findings but reduces the punitive damages as excessive, requiring
• Rado v. State OF Conn.
  607 F.2d 572· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-03 ·cited 26×
  The court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the state's attorney's recitation of a witness's prior statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause and that the questioning of the witness, even with the expectation of a Fifth Amendment invocation, did not con
• United States v. Noble C. Beasley and James H. Finley
  513 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting extrajudicial statements and hearsay evidence without proper limiting instructions, requiring reversal.
• Sosa v. State
  215 So. 2d 736· Fla.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 26×
  The appellate court reversed the convictions, finding that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct an in camera inspection of subpoenaed correspondence and in admitting extrajudicial statements that went beyond corroboration and introduced extrinsic facts. The court also add
• 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.
• Garcia v. United States
  315 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a severance, in denying a mistrial due to co-defendant statements with limiting instructions, or in finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
• Benatar v. United States
  209 F.2d 734· 9th Cir.· 1954-01-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the conspiracy conviction and that the trial court's instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• United States v. Roth
  777 F.2d 1200· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant dismissal of the indictment and that there was sufficient evidence for admitting extrajudicial statements.
• THE News-Journal Corp. v. Honorable S. James Foxman
  939 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 21×
  The News-Journal Corporation challenged a state trial court's restrictive order prohibiting extrajudicial statements by trial participants in a sensational murder-for-hire case. The federal district court dismissed the action under Younger abstention, finding that the News-Journa
• Isabella Rodriguez v. Richard J. Feinstein, M.D. & Richard J. Feinstein, M.D., P.A.
  734 So. 2d 1162· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-06-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's order prohibiting parties and counsel from discussing the case with the media was an overbroad restriction on First Amendment rights.
• Oberlin v. The Marlin Am. Corp. (formerly The Marlin Corporation)
  596 F.2d 1322· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish an agency relationship between the manufacturer/distributor and the defendants, and that the exclusion of certain deposition testimony was proper.
• Williams v. State
  74 So. 2d 797· Fla.· 1954-09-28 ·cited 18×
  Jessie Lee Williams was convicted of murder in the second degree for fatally stabbing Artice Clark. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecutor to read an incriminating extrajudicial statement to t
• Central South Carolina Chapter v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF S.C.
  551 F.2d 559· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Society, as a non-party, lacked standing to appeal the interlocutory order. The judge concurred that the facts were undeveloped but dissented on the dismissal, arguing for appellate jurisdiction and remand.
• Drysdale v. State
  325 So. 2d 80· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-01-16 ·cited 16×
  George Drysdale was convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of his fiancée Debra Crawford based primarily on his confessions to police. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of homicide indepen
• Rios-Ramirez v. United States
  403 F.2d 1016· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statements at a joint trial does not violate the confrontation clause if the codefendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.
• State v. Stubbs
  239 So. 2d 241· Fla.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a District Court of Appeal's decision to reverse a rape conviction based on the admission of a co-defendant's confession. The Supreme Court held that admitting a co-defendant's confession is not reversible error if the defendant's own confession
• Jordan v. State
  560 So. 2d 315· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-04-20 ·cited 10×
  Tracy Jordan, a 17-year-old high school student, was convicted as an adult of criminal solicitation for allegedly asking a classmate to purchase crack cocaine. The appellate court affirmed the constitutional validity of the statute but reversed the conviction, finding the evidenc
• Stella v. Graham-Paige Motors Corp. & Kaiser-Frazer Corp.
  259 F.2d 476· 2d Cir.· 1958-09-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Graham-Paige Motors Corporation did not realize a profit on the sale of Kaiser-Frazer stock within the meaning of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thus the issuer could not recover any amount.
• Rossbach v. Rundle
  128 F. Supp. 2d 1348· S.D. Fla.· 2000-02-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the media has a right to access court records, this right is not absolute and can be balanced against competing interests, such as the privacy of non-parties, to justify sealing certain documents. The court also limited the scope of discovery in the unde
• Monachelli v. Warden, SCI Graterford & the Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa. & the Dist. Attorney of Bucks Cnty.
  884 F.2d 749· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's out-of-court statements, even with a limiting instruction, violates the other defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Clarissa Marsh v. Richardson
  781 F.2d 1201· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement, even if redacted, violated the Confrontation Clause because it was powerfully incriminating and vital to the prosecution's case against the defendant, creating a substantial risk the jury considered it.
• Times Publ'g Co. v. Penick
  433 So. 2d 1281· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-06-29 ·cited 8×
  Times Publishing Company and its reporters challenged a trial judge's closure of post-sentencing jury inquiry proceedings and imposition of a gag order on participants. The court held that the press must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before closure orders are ente
• Butler v. State
  376 So. 2d 937· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-11-15 ·cited 8×
  David Butler was convicted of marijuana possession with intent to sell. On appeal, the court found reversible error in the admission of a severed codefendant's address book to prove knowledge of the codefendant, as it violated Butler's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The co
• Randolph v. Parker
  575 F.2d 1178· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions in a joint trial, where the co-defendants did not testify and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause under Bruton v. United States, and this violation could not be
• Emmitt R. Warring v. United States
  222 F.2d 906· 4th Cir.· 1955-05-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's use of net worth and cash disbursement methods, supported by corroborating evidence of substantial expenditures exceeding reported income, was permissible in a tax evasion prosecution, even when relying on extra-judicial statements.
• Spriggs v. United States
  198 F.2d 782· 9th Cir.· 1952-09-03 ·cited 8×
  Statements made by the appellant to Internal Revenue Agents, even if admissible, were insufficient to sustain a conviction for tax evasion without independent proof of a crime.
• News-Press Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Honorable Hugh D. Hayes
  493 So. 2d 1· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-05-14 ·cited 6×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order restricting extrajudicial statements by parties, counsel, and witnesses in a criminal case. The court held that while trial judges have discretion to impose such restric
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Rupert Pondt
  456 F.2d 679· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a statement made by a witness out of court is inadmissible as substantive evidence in a criminal proceeding in the Virgin Islands, even if permitted by the Virgin Islands Code, because it does not qualify as an 'act of Congress' exception to the Federal Rules
• Green v. United States
  411 F.2d 588· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that convictions must be reversed and new trials granted due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions that changed the law regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial statements and Miranda warnings.
• Garcia v. United States
  250 F.2d 930· 10th Cir.· 1957-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statutory presumption of unlawful acquisition was not rebutted by the government's evidence, allowing the jury to consider guilt.
• United States v. Ford
  830 F.2d 596· 6th Cir.· 1987-09-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that it would almost invariably be an abuse of judicial discretion to enjoin a Member of Congress from publicly defending his character after indictment.
• In re Lacie Russell
  726 F.2d 1007· 4th Cir.· 1984-02-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district judge's gag order prohibiting potential witnesses from discussing their testimony with the media did not violate their First Amendment rights, as it was a necessary measure to ensure a fair trial.
• United States v. Cifarelli
  589 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on probable cause and adequate showing of other investigative procedures, and that the admission of a codefendant's statement, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• In re the State-Record Co., Inc.
  917 F.2d 124· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying a 'reasonable likelihood' standard instead of the 'substantial probability' standard when sealing court records in a criminal case, and that closure orders must be narrowly tailored and supported by specific findings.
• Elroy Hendrix v. Smith
  639 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement that inculpated the appellant, even with a limiting instruction, violated the appellant's confrontation rights and was not harmless error given the weakness of the prosecution's case.
• State of Fla. ex rel. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. McINTOSH
  322 So. 2d 544· Fla.· 1975-11-05 ·cited 4×
  The Miami Herald Publishing Company and other news media organizations sought prohibition and mandamus to overturn a trial judge's gag order restricting media coverage and statements by government officials in a high-profile securities fraud prosecution. The Florida Supreme Court