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. Metro. Enters., Inc.
  728 F.2d 444· 10th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy to rig bids under the Sherman Act, and that the indictment sufficiently stated an offense.
• United States v. Ciambrone
  787 F.2d 799· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to link the appellant to the conspiracy to commit extortion, and that co-conspirator statements were admissible.
• United States v. Rubiett Jenkins
  779 F.2d 606· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions for appellants Quarterman, Prather, and McTeer, but reversed Jenkins' conviction due to insufficient evidence. The court also found no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof o
• United States v. Mohan Mankani
  738 F.2d 538· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that eavesdropping via a hole in the wall of a hotel room did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the search warrant was valid. However, the evidence against Sally Edith was insufficient for her conviction.
• United States v. Geronimo Jose Garcia
  721 F.2d 721· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie double jeopardy claim and that the district court did not err in admitting coconspirator statements or denying severance and mistrial motions.
• United States v. Conrado Caballero
  712 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute, the prosecutor's closing argument was permissible, and the court did not err in denying severance or a James hearing.
• United States v. Cleo Burgard
  551 F.2d 190· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search warrant was valid, the seized evidence was admissible, and the defendant's statements were properly admitted.
• United States v. Gomez
  927 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that post-arrest statements obtained after the defendant requested counsel, and following police-initiated discussion of sentencing and cooperation, were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and should have been suppressed.
• John R. (Bob) Park v. EL Paso Bd. OF Realtors
  764 F.2d 1053· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to make required findings regarding coconspirator hearsay, necessitating a new trial for two realty companies. The court also found insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict against the El Paso Board of Realtors.
• United States v. Schmick
  904 F.2d 936· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was timely and that the evidence was sufficient to convict most appellants, but reversed one conviction due to Bruton error.
• Garlington v. O'Leary
  879 F.2d 277· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The admission of a codefendant's statement as a coconspirator's statement did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Leisure
  844 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Anthony Leisure, Charles Loewe, David Leisure, and Paul Leisure, but reversed and remanded Wougamon's convictions on Counts I and IV.
• United States v. Rios
  842 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy to import cocaine and that the admitted co-conspirator statements were made in furtherance of that conspiracy.
• United States v. Palow
  777 F.2d 52· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, informant testimony, jury instructions, admission of statements, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• World OF Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co.
  756 F.2d 1467· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a vertical conspiracy to maintain resale prices is illegal per se, and that sufficient evidence existed to send the Sherman Act claim against La-Z-Boy to the jury. However, insufficient evidence existed to support the claim against Montgomery Ward and Mauldin.
• United States v. Robert H. Gullett (81-1536)
  713 F.2d 1203· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, finding sufficient evidence for convictions, and that Travel Act counts were not multiplicious. However, a recorded conversation was improperly admitted against one defendant.
• United States v. Kendricks
  623 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 28×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's extrajudicial statements, made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy, is permissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Sada Vargas
  615 F.2d 952· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Korman
  614 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a warrantless entry to 'secure' premises pending a search warrant is an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from such entry must be suppressed.
• United States v. McGUIRE
  608 F.2d 1028· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that McGuire's severance and hearsay objections were properly denied, and Rivera's conviction for conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, but his convictions for distribution and possession were not.
• United States v. Green
  600 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, even if not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and that other evidentiary and constitutional claims lacked merit.
• United States v. Caraza
  843 F.2d 432· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a protective sweep of a residence following a lawful arrest is permissible if officers reasonably believe it is necessary for safety, and that coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible. The court also affirmed the d
• In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. (Ten cases) The State OF Alaska v. Boise Cascade Corp.
  685 F.2d 810· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its scheduling, transfer of venue, evidentiary rulings, or discovery sanctions, and therefore affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants.
• United States v. Smith
  909 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-27 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the admission of wiretap evidence or co-conspirator statements, and upholding the sentencing decisions.
• United States v. Dalton Green
  887 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting firearms and coconspirator statements, nor was the evidence insufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Garver
  809 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator statements, evidence of fee payments, and denying severance motions, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and RICO violations.
• United States v. Rengifo
  789 F.2d 975· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that tape recordings and their transcripts, even in a foreign language, are admissible if properly authenticated and that sending transcripts to the jury room is permissible within the trial court's discretion, especially when the jury does not understand the langu
• The United States v. Shirl F. Kapp
  781 F.2d 1008· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict the appellant of conspiracy to transport stolen vehicles, as there was no proof of an agreement or common purpose to commit the underlying offense.
• United States v. Huber
  772 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 26×
  The admission of an out-of-court statement by a coconspirator violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Pasquale Panza
  750 F.2d 1141· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the indictment was sufficient, severance was not required, the evidence supported guilty knowledge and intent, and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• United States v. Bautista
  731 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search of the vehicle was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, the co-conspirator's statements were properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Horacio Saimiento-Rozo
  676 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its voir dire, that sufficient evidence supported the importation convictions, and that the Miranda warnings given to McDonald were adequate.
• United States v. Hansen
  583 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions or restricting cross-examination, and that most convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded the perjury convictions for Steven R. Hansen due to prejudicial
• United States v. Williams
  548 F.2d 228· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the admission of certain co-conspirator statements, though technically hearsay after one conspirator's arrest, was not prejudicial error, and the jury's request to replay a tape was within the trial court's discretion. The court also declined to rule on the du
• United States v. Riyaid Swidan
  888 F.2d 1076· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the district court properly admitted coconspirator statements and that the defendant's other claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred.
• United States v. Bernal
  884 F.2d 1518· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both appellants, finding no merit in their challenges regarding sentencing, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of evidence.
• Earle v. Benoit
  850 F.2d 836· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of town officers' statements due to lack of proven conspiracy, but erred in directing a verdict on the civil rights conspiracy claim, though this error was harmless.
• United States v. Grossman
  843 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a superseding indictment returned shortly before trial, nor in failing to grant a continuance, and that the government was not obligated to provide grand jury testimony claimed to b
• United States v. Levasseur
  816 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidence seized pursuant to warrants was admissible, and that the warrantless search of an abandoned footlocker was lawful.
• United States v. David O'Malley & Robert Salerno
  796 F.2d 891· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, evidence was sufficient, and co-conspirator statements were admissible, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Buchanan
  787 F.2d 477· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting character evidence, hearsay testimony under the co-conspirator exception, expert testimony on an ultimate issue, or in its handling of a witness sequestration issue, and that prosecutorial and judicial misconduct claims
• United States v. Eirin
  778 F.2d 722· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting Botero's post-arrest statements, coconspirator statements, or evidence of other money laundering schemes, and that the denial of severance motions and claims of judicial/prosecutorial misconduct were also without mer
• United States v. Doyle
  771 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a defendant must testify to preserve a claim of improper impeachment with prior convictions and that statements made by co-conspirators after the bombing were admissible as made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Remigio
  767 F.2d 730· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that entry through an open door in the presence of a defendant does not violate the knock-and-announce statute (18 U.S.C. § 3109), and a prosecutor's single, objected-to comment on post-arrest silence can be harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Dunn
  758 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning a second extortion attempt did not constructively amend the indictment and was admissible under the co-conspirator exception to hearsay, and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Jennell
  749 F.2d 1302· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a jury instruction on the defense of duress, and the admission of certain documents constituted harmless error.
• United States v. Roth
  736 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a coconspirator's testimony about his agreement with the government, even without a limiting instruction, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severanc
• United States v. Richardo Torres
  685 F.2d 921· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of sample drug transactions and co-conspirator statements was proper, and that Reinosa's post-arrest statement was admissible.
• United States v. Montemayor
  684 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that any errors regarding extraneous offenses or prosecutorial misconduct were harmless due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence supporting the conviction.
• United States v. Littlefield
  594 F.2d 682· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-15 ·cited 24×
  The death of a defendant during appeal moots the appeal and abates the cause, requiring dismissal of the indictment against the deceased. A co-conspirator's out-of-court statement is admissible if independent evidence establishes the conspiracy.