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. Wood
  550 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-23 ·cited 88×
  The court held that a fugitive's appeal is subject to dismissal and that various evidentiary and procedural rulings by the trial court did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Danilo Bautista Batimana and Jose Edgardo Noguera
  623 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-22 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish possession for Nicanor, and therefore insufficient to support the convictions of his alleged aiders and abettors.
• United States v. Ashley
  569 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-20 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a conviction for shoplifting is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement under Fed.R.Evid. 609(a)(2), and that a conviction under the Federal Youth Corrections Act is not a juvenile adjudication under Fed.R.Evid. 609(d). The court also held that pro
• United States v. Jannotti
  729 F.2d 213· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 86×
  The court held that while the appellants' conduct was sufficient to convict them of Hobbs Act conspiracy, the evidence did not prove Schwartz conspired to conduct the affairs of the law firm as required for a RICO conviction.
• United States v. Massa
  740 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 85×
  The court affirmed Massa's conviction on all counts and Skinner's conviction on all but three counts of interstate transportation of forged securities, finding no prejudicial variance and that any error in admitting coconspirator hearsay was harmless.
• United States v. Pedroza
  750 F.2d 187· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-11 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the trial court erred in unduly curtailing the defendants' cross-examination of government witnesses regarding the victim's father's alleged consent to the abduction, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Murray Morris Kessler
  530 F.2d 1246· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-03 ·cited 83×
  A retrial is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause if prosecutorial overreaching caused the mistrial, even if the mistrial was granted at the defendant's request.
• United States v. Wilmer Stanley Snow
  521 F.2d 730· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 82×
  The court held that statements of a co-conspirator, even if hearsay, are admissible if made in furtherance of the conspiracy and if independent evidence establishes the conspiracy and the declarant's and defendant's connection to it, and do not violate the Confrontation Clause if
• United States v. Martorano
  557 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1977-03-30 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court's evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• United States v. Otto Archbold-Newball
  554 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 79×
  The court held that statements made by the appellants to an undercover agent in Martinique were admissible as co-conspirator hearsay and did not violate their Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights because they were not in custody for Miranda purposes and the right to counsel had not ye
• United States v. Sophie
  900 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Poliak's motion for an evidentiary hearing on his alleged plea agreement, nor in denying Laskowski's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, nor in admitting evidence of Laskowski's prior marijuana dealing
• United States v. Lurz
  666 F.2d 69· 4th Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 76×
  The court held that separate conspiracies existed, allowing prosecution for both, and that evidence of a prior conviction could be used to prove elements of a continuing criminal enterprise other than the predicate felony. Convictions for the lesser included offense of conspiracy
• United States v. Dalzotto
  603 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-02 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the cumulative independent evidence, including the roadside meeting and dealings with a middleman, was sufficient to establish a conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence, allowing admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements.
• United States v. Smith
  550 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding jurors exposed to pretrial publicity, admitting certain lay witness testimony, admitting hearsay under the coconspirator exception, severing a defendant, denying a motion to suppress based on illegal se
• United States v. Smith
  918 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed most convictions but vacated sentences for multiple firearm offenses for Hicks and A.J. Smith, remanding for resentencing.
• United States v. Zambrana
  841 F.2d 1320· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that the wiretap affidavits sufficiently demonstrated the necessity of electronic surveillance.
• United States v. Mendoza
  574 F.2d 1373· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the marital privilege barring one spouse from testifying adversely to another is inapplicable when the testifying spouse did not testify at trial, but this error was harmless.
• United States v. Williams
  798 F.2d 1024· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 72×
  The court reversed Debbie Williams' conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence but affirmed convictions for David Williams and Wayne Russell.
• United States v. Tillman J. Bentley
  706 F.2d 1498· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the warrants were supported by probable cause, the co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the trial court did not err in evidentiary rulings or denying a new trial or mistrial.
• United States v. Mason
  658 F.2d 1263· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the modified Allen charge given to the jury was impermissibly coercive because it emphasized the expense of the trial and the Supreme Court's approval of such charges without adequately reminding the minority jurors not to surrender their conscientiously held
• United States v. Nile Smith
  790 F.2d 789· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the warrantless arrest and seizure were lawful, the admission of a co-defendant's guilty plea was not reversible error, and other assignments of error lacked merit.
• United States v. Tille
  729 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-29 ·cited 70×
  The court held that proof of an agreement to commit a substantive RICO violation is sufficient for a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and that coconspirator statements made during the conspiracy's concealment efforts are admissible.
• United States v. Williams
  577 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's prior conviction was proper for corroboration and to show intent, and a post-conspiracy conversation was admissible as an adoptive admission.
• United States v. Smith
  578 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of certain tape-recorded statements, even if inadmissible, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to Leonard Smith's conviction.
• United States v. Hensley Garner
  837 F.2d 1404· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 69×
  Joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) because a conspiracy was alleged, and severance was not required under Rule 14 as defendants failed to show sufficient prejudice from the joint trial.
• United States v. Haimowitz
  725 F.2d 1561· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 69×
  The court held that Haimowitz's convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud were supported by sufficient evidence, but his conviction for attempted extortion on Count Five was deficient due to lack of proof of solicitation and a promise of official grace.
• United States v. Carmine Persico
  832 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the jury, not the judge, must make the factual determination of when criminal conduct occurred when it is critical to a double jeopardy defense. The court also held that a RICO conspiracy conviction requires proof that a specific conspiracy to commit a predica
• United States v. Fielding
  645 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements by alleged co-conspirators, which were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, constituted reversible error under the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Luschen
  614 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidence supported conspiracy and distribution charges, and that search and seizure issues, expert testimony admissibility, and rebuttal evidence timing were properly handled by the trial court.
• United States v. Goodman
  605 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court also found that limitations
• United States v. Caro
  569 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admissible evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly participated in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Campa
  679 F.2d 1006· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting, that the display of unoffered tapes was not prejudicial, that prosecutorial comments were not improper, that a principal need not be identified or convicted, and that the defendant
• United States v. Yarbrough
  852 F.2d 1522· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 64×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the pretrial, trial, or sentencing phases.
• United States v. Alion Andersson
  813 F.2d 1450· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-03 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the hotel room and suitcase was justified by exigent circumstances and as a search incident to arrest, respectively. Admission of the coconspirator's statement and expert testimony was proper, and the Government complied with Brady an
• United States v. Acosta
  763 F.2d 671· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a written jury charge and in admitting co-conspirator hearsay statements subject to later connection, but reversed convictions due to insufficient evidence or lack of venue.
• United States v. Milham
  590 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the van was permissible under a forfeiture statute, the admission of a pistol into evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of severance motions was proper. The court also affirmed the admissibility of coconspirator sta
• United States v. MacKey
  571 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement was proper as it was made during the concealment phase of the conspiracy, and that other alleged errors, including prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary rulings, did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Miller
  771 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the Sherman Act is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to price-fixing, the indictment was sufficient, the grand jury composition challenge failed, and Jencks Act violations were harmless errors.
• United States v. Arbelaez
  719 F.2d 1453· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single conspiracy and that the admission of coconspirator statements and the denial of severance motions were proper.
• United States v. Kendall
  665 F.2d 126· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 63×
  The court held that statements made by members of an association, even if they could not be charged as co-conspirators under the Hobbs Act, were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) as statements made in furtherance of a joint venture, provided the trial court m
• United States v. Allison
  908 F.2d 1531· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the prosecutor's stated reasons for striking African-American jurors were insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination established by the defendant.
• United States v. Raimundo Crespo de Llano
  830 F.2d 1532· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 61×
  The court held that a trial court's failure to personally advise jointly represented defendants of their right to separate counsel under Rule 44(c) does not mandate reversal unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the lawyer's performance. The court also held tha
• United States v. Weisz
  718 F.2d 413· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the defendants' contentions were without merit, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Gibbs
  739 F.2d 838· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the government should have an opportunity to prove witness unavailability at a hearing, rather than ordering a new trial.
• United States v. Rucker
  586 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting prior conviction evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Shafter W. Summers
  598 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-09 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish an effect on interstate commerce for Hobbs Act jurisdiction and that the limitations on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Rocha
  916 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the denial of severance motions.
• United States v. Bibbero
  749 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was an error that was not harmless, and the government's violation of the Jencks Act required reversal.
• United States v. Doerr
  886 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-03 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the improper admission of certain coconspirator statements was harmless error, and the admission of grand jury testimony under the catch-all hearsay exception was proper. The court affirmed all convictions.
• United States v. McCOWN
  711 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.