Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(e)

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

• United States v. James
  590 F.2d 575· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 591×
  The court's construction of Rule 104 as the 'orthodox position' is questioned, favoring a division of preliminary evidence questions between judge and jury.
• United States v. Bell
  573 F.2d 1040· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 282×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire questions, admission of coconspirator statements, or jury instructions, and any errors in admitting testimony about the gun's purpose were harmless.
• United States v. Petrozziello
  548 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 230×
  The court held that the admission of the gun was proper as it was in plain view during a lawful seizure of the vehicle, and that the defendant's statement was admissible as he failed to raise objections below.
• United States v. Santiago
  582 F.2d 1128· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-22 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the trial judge's preliminary determination of admissibility for co-conspirator statements was sufficient, and the sentencing judge's comments, while potentially problematic, did not constitute an abuse of discretion or warrant vacating the sentence.
• United States v. Sadik Xheka and Beha Xheka
  704 F.2d 974· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 188×
  The court held that gasoline and its fumes can constitute an 'explosive' under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that the timing of certain disclosures did not violate Brady v. Maryland, as the information was revealed during trial and did not prevent a fair trial.
• United States v. Russell
  703 F.2d 1243· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 164×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was permissible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Fleishman
  684 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 164×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting agent opinion testimony regarding lookout activity, handwriting expert testimony, or coconspirator hearsay statements, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Hartley
  678 F.2d 961· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 163×
  The court held that a corporation can conspire with its own officers, agents, and employees, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and RICO violations.
• United States v. Whitten
  706 F.2d 1000· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 159×
  The court held that the evidence seized was admissible, affirming the convictions, as the searches, while having some irregularities, were substantially lawful and the evidence obtained fell within the scope of the warrants or exceptions thereto. The court also found the evidence
• United States v. Jefferson
  714 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 142×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the searches were lawful, the evidence was properly admitted, the jury instructions were adequate, and the sentencing did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• United States v. Scholle
  553 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 142×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because substantial independent evidence showed a likelihood of illicit association, and that the admission of prior consistent statements and evidence of prior bad acts was permissible under the Federal Ru
• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Johnson
  575 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 139×
  The court held that there was no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, nor between the bill of particulars and the proof, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to define statutory terms like 'organizer' or 'substantial income'.
• United States v. Bulman
  667 F.2d 1374· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 137×
• United States v. West
  670 F.2d 675· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 136×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, dismissing the indictment, or in most evidentiary rulings, and that any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Patterson
  644 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 136×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Vinson
  606 F.2d 149· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-27 ·cited 134×
  The court held that the trial judge's conditional admission of co-conspirator hearsay evidence, even with preliminary comments to the jury, did not prejudice the defendants, and that other alleged trial errors were also insufficient to warrant reversal.
• United States v. Sutherland
  656 F.2d 1181· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 132×
  The court held that the government may try multiple, otherwise unrelated conspiracies as a single RICO enterprise conspiracy if the evidence shows an agreement to participate in the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, even without direct agreement between all m
• United States v. Williams
  604 F.2d 1102· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-21 ·cited 124×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting coconspirator statements after finding sufficient independent evidence of conspiracy and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to poll the jury regarding prejudicial publicity unrelated to the defendants.
• United States v. Mealy
  851 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 123×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence or responding to jury questions.
• United States v. Chan Walker Zielie
  734 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 122×
  The court affirmed most convictions but vacated one, finding no violations of speedy trial, self-representation, opening statement, co-conspirator statement admissibility, sufficiency of evidence, forfeiture, double jeopardy, or jury communication rights.
• United States v. Williams
  737 F.2d 594· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the electronic surveillance evidence was admissible because the applications and orders satisfied statutory requirements and the Fourth Amendment, and any misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavits were not material to probable cause.
• United States v. Ciampaglia
  628 F.2d 632· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 121×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the timing of the Petrozziello ruling was not plain error, pre-indictment delay did not violate due process, reference to the witness protection program was not grounds for a mistrial, withheld evidence w
• United States v. Natividad Ocanas
  628 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and the trial court did not err in admitting testimony or denying severance, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Dante Angelo Grassi and Jack Louis Gail
  616 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-14 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Grassi's conviction for conspiracy under count 1, but sufficient for his conviction under count 2. The court also found sufficient evidence for Gail's conspiracy conviction and rejected his entrapment defense.
• United States v. Gary L. "Scott" Dickey
  736 F.2d 571· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 117×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Friedrich's conviction for conspiracy.
• United States v. Mason Townsend
  924 F.2d 1385· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 116×
  The court held that a buyer-seller relationship, without more, is insufficient to prove a conspiracy, as it does not demonstrate a mutual agreement to achieve a criminal objective beyond the transaction itself.
• United States v. Enright
  579 F.2d 980· 6th Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard, not the prima facie case standard, applies under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) for determining the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, but the trial court's use of the latter was not plain error. The court
• United States v. Montes-Cardenas
  746 F.2d 771· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of drug and firearms counts was proper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance or continuance motions.
• United States v. Andrews
  585 F.2d 961· 10th Cir.· 1978-10-13 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the immunized co-conspirator's testimony, taking judicial notice of venue, admitting plastic bags of cocaine, or denying the motion for acquittal.
• United States v. Urrego-Linares
  879 F.2d 1234· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 106×
  A defendant seeking a mitigating factor at sentencing bears the burden of proving its applicability by a preponderance of the evidence, and co-conspirator statements made after arrest are admissible if in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Ordonez
  737 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the Ninth Circuit's refusal to adopt the rule of per se admissibility for statements falling within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions is incorrect and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. Riccobene
  709 F.2d 214· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of a RICO enterprise and that the appellants knowingly agreed to participate in it through a pattern of racketeering activity. The convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Gennaro J. Angiulo
  897 F.2d 1169· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 101×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions and sentences but reversed certain portions of the forfeiture order.
• United States v. Nickolas Frol
  518 F.2d 1134· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the admission of alleged co-conspirator hearsay statements was erroneous due to insufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.
• United States v. Filippo Casamento
  887 F.2d 1141· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the length and complexity of the trial, spillover prejudice, and publicity did not substantially prejudice the defendants, and thus severance was not required.
• United States v. Figueroa
  818 F.2d 1020· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the Secret Service had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and his subsequent statements were admissible. The court also found that the admission of coconspirator testimony and agent testimony was proper.
• United States v. Stanchich
  550 F.2d 1294· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-06 ·cited 97×
  The court held that Fitzgerald's statements were admissible against Stanchich on the substantive counts because sufficient independent evidence showed Stanchich's participation in the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence, even though the conspiracy count itself was dismi
• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Green
  548 F.2d 1261· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the admission of extensive, irrelevant, and prejudicial expert testimony regarding the properties, street value, and potential for abuse of DMT, as well as the economic incentives for its manufacture, constituted a violation of the defendants' due process righ
• United States v. Ramsey
  785 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-28 ·cited 94×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• United States v. Varella
  692 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of informants, denying severance motions, or admitting hearsay statements made in furtherance of a continuing conspiracy.
• United States v. Rivera-Santiago
  872 F.2d 1073· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy to possess and distribute marihuana, and affirmed the convictions. The court also found that the trial court's refusal to give a specific cautionary instruction was not reversible error.
• United States v. Yonn
  702 F.2d 1341· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the government's warrantless interception of conversations in a hotel room, without prior judicial authorization or consent from the occupant, violated the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Liefer
  778 F.2d 1236· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 90×
  The court held that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to prove specific intent, an essential element of the crime, even if the defendant denies committing the act itself. The court also held that prosecutorial misconduct and the denial of a lesser
• United States v. Southard
  700 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Franks hearing, admitting evidence of gambling activities, or finding the evidence sufficient for conviction, and that the ex parte, in camera interview was harmless error.
• United States v. McLERNON
  746 F.2d 1098· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 89×
  The court held that a voluntariness instruction was not required when the defense strategy was to deny the statement was made, and that items seized in plain view were properly seized under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. Elam
  678 F.2d 1234· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-21 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a single conspiracy, not multiple independent ones, and that the convictions should be affirmed.
• United States v. Inocenio Guterrez Perez
  658 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-29 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper due to independent evidence of conspiracy and the defendant's link to it, and that the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause was not violated. However, the special parole term imposed for the conspiracy convi
• United States v. Calabrese
  645 F.2d 1379· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the mistrial was declared out of manifest necessity, the denial of change of venue and severance motions was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the admission of co-conspirator statements and other evidence w