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. Page-Bey
  960 F.2d 724· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government fulfilled its disclosure obligations by providing all information in its possession regarding a witness's prior convictions, and that the trial court did not err in refusing special verdict forms or admitting coconspirator statements.
• United States v. Cota
  953 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to infer the appellant's knowledge of the illicit source of properties and participation in a conspiracy to conceal proceeds from their sale, and that her statements were admissible.
• United States v. Coco
  926 F.2d 759· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's taped statements was proper as an admission of a party opponent, and that any Bruton or Bell issues were either waived or not plain error.
• E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. Gen. Portland Inc.
  885 F.2d 1392· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking co-conspirator statements under an outdated standard and in its jury instruction regarding a conspiracy to eliminate a competitor. It also found the district court abused its discretion regarding the authentication and prob
• United States v. Dorsey
  865 F.2d 1275· D.C. Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's actions did not improperly coerce the jury, but vacated the conspiracy conviction due to the concurrent sentence doctrine and the difficulty of the evidentiary issue presented.
• The Monarch Ins. Co. OF Ohio & the Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. The Ins. Corp. OF Ireland Ltd. & Frelinghuysen Livestock Managers, Inc.
  835 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury was justified in finding valid reinsurance contracts existed and that ICI ratified them, and that ICI's counterclaims and challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were without merit.
• United States v. McMURRY
  818 F.2d 24· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar a second trial because the prosecution did not intentionally provoke the mistrial, and the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements or in its communication with the jury.
• United States v. Hernan Espino-Perez
  798 F.2d 439· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly raised on direct appeal, and other claims regarding hearsay, sufficiency of evidence, and new trial motions lacked merit.
• United States v. Scott
  795 F.2d 1245· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Richardson
  694 F.2d 251· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 2×
  An indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is not insufficient for failing to specify the instrumentality of interstate commerce from which goods were stolen, and a defendant charged solely with possession of stolen goods cannot claim a variance if evidence suggests he also stole them.
• Precision Piping AND Instruments v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  951 F.2d 613· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-09 ·cited 1×
  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to withstand a directed verdict on its antitrust claims. The court also affirmed the exclusion of certain hearsay statements offered by the
• Sanders v. Moore
  156 F. Supp. 2d 1301· M.D. Fla.· 2001-08-14
  The court held that the admission of John Barrett's statements to his wife, Paula Barrett, violated the Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because the statements were not made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Gary
  999 F.2d 474· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-15
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no reversible error in admitting co-conspirator statements, and no misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Mahkimetas
  991 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court held that the erroneous admission of one co-conspirator's statement was harmless error, and that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction due to lack of evidence of government inducement and sufficient evidence of predisposition.
• United States v. Heriberto Ruiz
  987 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-22
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, photographs, or in limiting cross-examination, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Jearold Kenneth Williams
  989 F.2d 1061· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-22
  The court held that the search warrants were valid, the admission of certain hearsay statements was either proper or harmless error, other crimes evidence was admissible, severance was not required, prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant reversal, and the Sentencing Guidelines
• United States v. Hoey
  983 F.2d 890· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-13
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's apartment was constitutional because she had abandoned it, and that the co-conspirator statements were admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• United States v. Patino-Rojas
  974 F.2d 94· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-08
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting conspirator hearsay statements and applying an obstruction of justice enhancement.
• United States v. Misle BUS & Equip. Co.
  967 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-26
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts for conspiracy to suppress competition, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or sentencing.
• United States v. Ervin Jahue Blevins
  960 F.2d 1252· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-31
  The introduction of testimony that six non-testifying co-defendants pleaded guilty constituted error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Rodrigo Vasquez
  903 F.2d 1400· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-22
  The court held that the admission of threats made by a co-conspirator during the course of the conspiracy was not reversible error, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.
• United States v. Dugan
  902 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-15
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and sufficient evidence existed to support the mail fraud convictions.
• United States v. White
  868 F.2d 305· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-27
  The court held that incriminating statements made by the defendant before indictment, even if elicited by a government informant, are admissible as party admissions under the Federal Rules of Evidence and do not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• United States v. Romero
  856 F.2d 1020· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-15
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy, and that his statements were properly admitted.
• United States v. Wood
  851 F.2d 185· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-29
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a pretrial hearing for conspiracy determination and that the denial of a petition for remission of seized property is not subject to judicial review.
• United States v. Bell
  648 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-01
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial was fair and the district judge did not err in admitting evidence or considering pre-sentence reports.
• United States v. Williams
  544 F.2d 1389· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-24
  The court held that the admission of heroin packets and coconspirator testimony was proper, affirming the conviction.