Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)

37 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Marx
  635 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 135×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methaqualone, and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
• United States v. Thomas
  757 F.2d 1359· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 104×
• United States v. Bridwell
  583 F.2d 1135· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-11 ·cited 88×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's comment on a defendant's refusal to waive Miranda rights was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that other alleged errors, including issues with search warrants, evidence admissibility, prosecutor a
• 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. DeFILLIPO
  590 F.2d 1228· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 60×
  Defendants cannot complain about joint representation after being warned and electing to proceed.
• United States v. Coppola
  526 F.2d 764· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 48×
  The court held that hearsay statements of a co-defendant, when adopted by the defendant, are admissible as party admissions, and that evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove motive.
• United States v. Wrigley
  520 F.2d 362· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that special attorneys appointed by the Attorney General, even with broad authorization letters, are empowered to conduct grand jury proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 515(a).
• United States v. Ballard
  779 F.2d 287· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not shield communications made for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud, and that the defendant's civil deposition testimony was admissible as an admission by a party-opponent.
• Indiviglio v. United States
  612 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1979-11-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a petitioner's failure to raise Fourth Amendment claims before trial constitutes a waiver, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel does not establish the necessary 'cause' to overcome this procedural default.
• United States v. Vasquez
  858 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the car and apartment, and that the scope of cross-examination and admission of fingerprint evidence were proper. The court also affirmed the conviction based on a Pinkerton
• United States v. MacDOUGALL
  790 F.2d 1135· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that it, not the jury, should decide double jeopardy claims. It also found that the evidence established separate conspiracies, thus rejecting the appellants' double jeopardy defense based on prior prosecutions.
• United States v. Valencia-Lucena
  925 F.2d 506· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed all convictions but vacated and remanded for resentencing, finding the district court's downward departure from sentencing guidelines was improper.
• United States v. Francis
  646 F.2d 251· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3109 does not apply to commercial premises like a barbershop, and that the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce rule has less force when applied to businesses. The court also held that the arrest was based on probable cause and was not pretextual.
• United States v. Munoz-Romo
  947 F.2d 170· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-05 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentencing in part, vacating and remanding in part, finding no double jeopardy violation and sufficient evidence for convictions.
• United States v. DeLONGCHAMPS
  679 F.2d 217· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was violated because the excludable time was insufficient to bring the defendants to trial within the statutory period. The convictions are reversed.
• United States v. Smith
  866 F.2d 1092· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 20×
  The Paperwork Reduction Act prohibits criminal penalties for failing to comply with information collection requests that lack a required control number.
• Jarrett v. United States
  822 F.2d 1438· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-17 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendant's counsel's failure to timely raise a selective or vindictive prosecution motion did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice, as such claims were unlikely to succeed. The court also h
• United States v. Neumann
  887 F.2d 880· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's comments on evidence constituted plain error and a directed verdict against the defendant.
• United States v. Mann
  884 F.2d 532· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for mail fraud convictions but insufficient for wire fraud. It also reversed convictions for willful failure to file due to an erroneous jury instruction on the good faith defense.
• United States v. Johnson
  679 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-24 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Goodwin requires proof of actual prosecutorial vindictiveness, not just a presumption, to vacate a sentence.
• United States v. Apolonia Galvan
  949 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A) and (C) were not multiplicious, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the sentencing was based on reliable information.
• United States v. Yasak
  884 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a conditional guilty plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) can be validly appealed even without a written reservation of rights, provided the government assents and the appeal will dispose of the case. The court also held that the defendant's arguments regarding l
• United States v. Oldfield
  859 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's argument regarding the exclusivity of the odometer tampering statute was not preserved for appeal due to untimely filing of the motion. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the use of the mails was in f
• United States v. Remi Pelletier and Robert Pelletier
  898 F.2d 297· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-06 ·cited 11×
  The government may not use testimony obtained under an informal grant of use immunity to obtain indictment and convictions on nonperjury counts, in violation of its express agreement to use the immunized testimony only in a prosecution for perjury.
• United States v. Madeoy
  912 F.2d 1486· D.C. Cir.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants. The court held that the appellants waived their claim of grand jury bias by failing to file a timely motion to dismiss the indictment and did not demonstrate sufficient cause or prejudice to warrant rel
• Jones v. Henderson
  494 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner waived his jury composition objections by failing to raise them before trial as required by Louisiana law.
• United States v. Lawson
  736 F.2d 835· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) by failing to assert them earlier or by his actions related to transfers, and affirmed the dismissal of the indictment.
• United States v. Levin
  973 F.2d 463· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues the district court improperly dismissed the indictment by conducting a pre-trial examination of the evidence, which usurped the grand jury's role and the jury's function at trial.
• United States v. Belcher
  927 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged a crime because the December 1985 version of Form 4789 clearly required financial institutions to disclose the real party in interest in reportable transactions, and the defendant's intentional concealment of this informatio
• United States v. Bolton
  893 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an indictment returned by a grand jury whose term was not properly extended is a nullity, and the court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant.
• United States v. Bogard
  846 F.2d 563· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion and the motion to inspect jury materials was untimely.
• United States v. Stephen
  569 F.2d 860· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's grounds for appeal were without merit and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Stickle
  355 F. Supp. 2d 1317· S.D. Fla.· 2004-10-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate a substantial imbalance of inconvenience to warrant transferring the case, and that the indictment sufficiently alleged venue and did not contain fatal duplicity.
• United States v. Borrego
  885 F.2d 822· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-10 ·cited 2×
  Appellants waived their Posse Comitatus Act claims by failing to raise them in an appropriate pretrial motion.
• United States v. DeFalco
  509 F. Supp. 127· S.D. Fla.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the search warrants were overbroad in their description of records related to the conspiracy, failing the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. Therefore, records seized under that portion of the warrants must be suppressed.
• United States v. Fedida
  1991 WL 45339· M.D. Fla.· 2013-05-01 ·cited 1×
  The Court held that the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to UR-144 and XLR-11, and the indictment is sufficient on its face.
• United States v. Cherral Dickinson
  636 F.2d 219· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-15
  The court held that the appellant waived her right to challenge the evidence's suppression by failing to file a motion to suppress or object at trial.