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. Chaney
  662 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the appellant's claims of trial error to be meritless.
• United States v. Salinas
  601 F.2d 1279· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district judge's violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, by requiring objections to jury instructions to be made in the jury's presence, constituted reversible error when it led to a constructive amendment of the indictment regarding an essenti
• United States v. ORR
  825 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, refusing to disclose a non-testifying coconspirator's statement, giving a deliberate ignorance instruction, refusing defense theory instructions, admitting evidence of extrinsic act
• United States v. de Gudino
  722 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's prior arrest, excluding a deportation document, or admitting 'polio lists' as co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Siegelman
  640 F.3d 1159· 11th Cir.· 2011-05-10 ·cited 52×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the convictions of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. The court upheld convictions for federal funds bribery, honest services mail fraud, and conspiracy, finding sufficient evidence
• United States v. Alicia Davis (85-1153)
  809 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in conducting an in camera hearing regarding peremptory challenges, as defendants' presence was not constitutionally required and their counsel had ample opportunity to present arguments. The court also affirmed the district cour
• United States v. Judd Carver Eisenberg
  807 F.2d 1446· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. The admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if potentially erroneous, was harmless error.
• United States v. Katsougrakis
  715 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 52×
  Convictions under the Explosive Control Act are reversed because uncontained gasoline is not an 'explosive' as defined by the Act, but conspiracy and mail fraud convictions are affirmed if supported by independent evidence.
• United States v. Robinson
  651 F.2d 1188· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-09 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting mail and wire fraud was valid, and that the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper comments on the defendant's failure to testify.
• United States v. FOX
  613 F.2d 99· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court properly admitted evidence and that the defendants were not denied effective assistance of counsel due to joint representation.
• United States v. Alonzo
  571 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-28 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the admission of flight evidence, hearsay testimony, and the restriction of cross-examination were not reversible errors, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Trowery
  542 F.2d 623· 3d Cir.· 1976-09-23 ·cited 52×
  The court held that statements made by a co-defendant in furtherance of a joint criminal undertaking are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, even without a conspiracy charge in the indictment. The court also found the admission of the defendant's pr
• United States v. Alejo Maldonado Medina
  761 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that evidence of a prior kidnapping was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and as proof of an overt act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting coconspirator statements or in its handling of pretrial publicity and jury i
• United States v. Gordon
  844 F.2d 1397· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 50×
  The court held that Count I of the indictment was duplicitous, charging two conspiracies, and reversed convictions on that count due to the risk of a non-unanimous verdict. All other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Crocker
  788 F.2d 802· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while most evidentiary rulings were proper, the sentencing judge's comments created a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, requiring a resentencing.
• United States v. Figueroa
  720 F.2d 1239· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Vega but insufficient to convict Santiago and Figueroa of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. ROE
  670 F.2d 956· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator statements, salesman statements, and extrinsic offense evidence, and that the jury selection procedure was proper.
• United States v. Wright
  588 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for Hobbs Act extortion and conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that the government was not obligated to grant immunity to a defense witness.
• United States v. Laurence John Layton
  855 F.2d 1388· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over charges of conspiracy and aiding/abetting the killing of a member of Congress and an internationally protected person, even though the acts occurred outside the United States. The court als
• United States v. Dixon
  562 F.2d 1138· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-13 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the hearsay statement was improperly admitted under the coconspirator exception as to Dixon.
• United States v. de Ortiz
  907 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 48×
  The court did not definitively rule on whether co-conspirator hearsay alone can support a conviction, reserving the issue for later.
• United States v. Lechuga
  888 F.2d 1472· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper.
• United States v. Burl Allen Peveto, Jr.
  881 F.2d 844· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-26 ·cited 48×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, affirming its prior holding that statements intended to promote conspiratorial objectives or identify coconspirators are made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Shoffner
  826 F.2d 619· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the informant's conduct, while potentially unsavory, did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to violate due process, and statements made by a defendant to the informant were properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Reyes
  798 F.2d 380· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause, the scope of the search warrant was not exceeded, the admitted evidence was properly authenticated, and co-conspirator testimony was admissible. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Harry Christian (84-5843)
  786 F.2d 203· 6th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on undisclosed evidence, nor in limiting cross-examination, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Lopez
  709 F.2d 742· 1st Cir.· 1983-06-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for knowingly participating in the drug conspiracy, and that various trial errors were either not preserved or not prejudicial.
• United States v. Cicale
  691 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court erred in considering certain hearsay statements as 'verbal acts' to satisfy the Geaney standard for Cicale's conviction.
• United States v. Holder
  560 F.2d 953· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-23 ·cited 48×
  The court held that hearsay statements of a co-conspirator were inadmissible without independent evidence of conspiracy, and that such evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on Count III. The conviction on Count I was affirmed due to sufficient independent evidence.
• United States v. Drew
  894 F.2d 965· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that co-conspirator statements were admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury.
• United States v. Strauss
  678 F.2d 886· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions and admission of coconspirator statements were not reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Arvanitis
  902 F.2d 489· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a mere inaccurate prediction of sentencing by counsel does not constitute ineffective assistance, but remanded restitution orders where legal fees were improperly included or where causation of loss was not established.
• United States v. D'Antoni
  874 F.2d 1214· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 46×
  The court noted that the five-year maximum penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiracy is inadequate when the underlying crime is a serious felony, suggesting Congress should revise the statute.
• United States v. Castro
  776 F.2d 1118· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the variance between the indictment and the evidence did not violate the Fifth Amendment's grand jury clause, the evidence was sufficient to convict Garcia-Remedio and Suarez, and the trial court's jury instructions adequately presented Castro's entrapment def
• United States v. Stewart
  770 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural errors in the sentencing process.
• United States v. Fahey
  769 F.2d 829· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of a potential conflict of interest with his counsel was knowing and intelligent, and that the search of an unpatented mining claim and seizure of soil samples did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that a coconspirator
• United States v. Inadi
  748 F.2d 812· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 46×
  The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires the government to demonstrate the unavailability of a non-testifying coconspirator before admitting their out-of-court statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The government failed to meet this burden for John Laza
• United States v. Monaco
  702 F.2d 860· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-17 ·cited 46×
  The court held that prior trial testimony of an unavailable witness is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) if the defense had an adequate opportunity for cross-examination, even if the witness violated a sequestration order. The court also affirmed convictions but remanded for
• United States v. Behrens
  689 F.2d 154· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to distribute narcotics were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding evidence, indictment, severance, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Glennon E. Engleman
  648 F.2d 473· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar crimes is admissible to prove intent, and tape recordings made with one party's consent are admissible under the Fourth Amendment. However, a co-conspirator's statement made after the conspiracy's objective was achieved is inadmissibl
• United States v. Fried
  576 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause and that post-arrest statements were admissible as non-hearsay. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Lambros
  564 F.2d 26· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-27 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that the trial court did not commit reversible error regarding evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Barnes
  586 F.2d 1052· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-22 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the limited use of impeachment evidence or prior offenses, and that the admission of a coconspirator's hearsay statement, though erroneous, did not substantially influence
• United States v. Stroupe
  538 F.2d 1063· 4th Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judge believes the circumstantial evidence, including Wright's actions and statements, is sufficient to uphold the guilty verdict.
• United States v. Adkins
  842 F.2d 210· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. Robinson
  774 F.2d 261· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance and a new trial, and that the government did not violate a plea agreement.
• United States v. Cochran
  697 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirators' statements, the variance between the indictment and proof, the jury's viewing of an inadmissible transcript, nondisclosure of certain materials, prosecutorial remarks, and the admission of photographs did not constitute revers
• United States v. Miller
  664 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that signing false title papers constituted a sufficient physical act for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2313, and that coconspirator statements were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
• United States v. Morris
  623 F.2d 145· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of certain evidence, even if potentially inadmissible, was not reversible error because the jury was properly instructed and the defendant failed to object. The court also held that the jury selection method used did not impair the defendant's ri
• United States v. Johnston
  784 F.2d 416· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed jury convictions on narcotics charges, holding that evidence seized under the plain view doctrine was admissible and that the admission of co-conspirator statements and evidence of prior bad acts did not prejudice the appellants.