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. Zepeda-Santana
  569 F.2d 1386· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting hearsay testimony conditionally, questioning a witness, limiting cross-examination, refusing certain jury instructions, or allowing the jury to rehear a taped conversation.
• United States v. Axel Urbanik
  801 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-23 ·cited 23×
  The dissenting judge would find the co-conspirator's statement admissible and its admission harmless.
• United States v. Singer
  732 F.2d 631· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance, admitting hearsay statements of a co-conspirator, or in its handling of alleged prosecutorial comment on the defendants' silence, and that consent to search was voluntary.
• United States v. Vasquez
  953 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the residence and that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
• United States v. Lopez
  937 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the hotel room, the translated Spanish statements were admissible, the prosecutor's summation was not improper, the jury instructions were adequate, and the sentences were
• United States v. Guerra-Marez
  928 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that wiretap evidence was admissible, a variance between the indictment and evidence did not prejudice substantial rights, and prosecutorial explanations for jury strikes were adequate. However, the evidence was insufficient to support Wenseslada Reyes-Moya's consp
• United States v. van Dorn
  925 F.2d 1331· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding his prior drug prosecution and alleged threats, nor in admitting testimony about a defendant's affiliation with the Gambino crime family and expe
• United States v. Wolf
  839 F.2d 1387· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendants' due process rights were not violated by the government's failure to produce gross tissue samples, and that statements admitted under the coconspirator exception were properly admitted or constituted harmless error. The court also found no due p
• United States v. Schepp
  746 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of flight, allowing leading questions, limiting cross-examination, admitting coconspirator statements, or in its handling of the government's closing remarks.
• United States v. Williams
  668 F.2d 1064· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by unduly restricting the defendant's cross-examination of a key government witness, thereby violating the confrontation clause and requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Ochoa
  564 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper and the prosecutor's closing remarks did not constitute plain error, affirming the convictions.
• State OF NEW York v. Hendrickson Bros., Inc.
  840 F.2d 1065· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-16 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of conspiracy, injury, and fraudulent concealment, affirming the judgment.
• United States v. Curry
  977 F.2d 1042· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joinder of perjury counts with conspiracy counts was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Brooks
  957 F.2d 1138· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but vacated one defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Joine Hose Maejia
  928 F.2d 810· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction, the evidence was properly admitted, the traffic stop was not pretextual, the search warrant was valid, and the sentencing enhancement was appropriate.
• United States v. Simmons
  923 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of unredacted grand jury testimony during deliberations, while potentially a Sixth Amendment violation, was harmless error because the testimony was cumulative and the defendant's credibility was extensively attacked. The court also affirmed the
• Nelson v. Farrey
  874 F.2d 1222· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 20×
  The admission of T's statements to Dr. McLean did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights because the prosecution demonstrated T's unavailability and the statements' particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
• United States v. Kusek
  844 F.2d 942· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the admission of wiretap tapes despite a delay in sealing, the exclusion of handwriting exemplars, the establishment of venue, the admission of a spontaneous oral statement, expert testimony on drug jargon, the use of a suppressed t
• United States v. Unruh
  855 F.2d 1363· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury instruction on intent to injure or defraud was potentially misleading, and that the failure to instruct on the defense of board consent or good faith constituted reversible error for certain counts, requiring remand.
• United States v. Whitman
  771 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by improperly precluding the appellant from presenting evidence to rebut the government's motive evidence regarding Jack Catain.
• United States v. Jeraline Ayotte
  741 F.2d 865· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the convictions of Labadie and Logan were supported by sufficient evidence and properly admitted testimony, while Ayotte's conviction was reversed due to an erroneous restriction on her cross-examination.
• United States v. Alexander
  741 F.2d 962· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that forfeiture of profits requires proof that the profits existed at the time of conviction, and that mailings of tax bills can be considered in furtherance of a bribery scheme.
• United States v. Alfonso
  738 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements was proper in a bench trial without explicit findings on the record, and that a sentence within statutory limits is generally not subject to appellate review.
• Saavedra v. State
  421 So. 2d 725· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-10 ·cited 20×
  Tony Saavedra appeals his conviction for trafficking in cannabis and possession of methaqualone with intent to sell. The court reverses and remands for a new trial due to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on penalties as required by prior Florida precedent, and provi
• United States v. Piatt
  679 F.2d 1228· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a district court may reread selected jury instructions in response to jury questions, provided it cautions the jury to consider them with all original instructions, and that the government is not required to disclose witness identities in non-capital cases.
• United States v. Berry
  644 F.2d 1034· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court properly limited cross-examination regarding the occasional sale defense, admitted co-conspirator statements, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Nardi
  633 F.2d 972· 1st Cir.· 1980-11-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that evidentiary rulings and denials of procedural rights were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. McCORMICK
  565 F.2d 286· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the sentences for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine hydrochloride were statutorily excessive and must be vacated and remanded for resentencing. Other convictions and evidentiary rulings were affirmed.
• United States v. Fernandez
  797 F.2d 943· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-26 ·cited 19×
  The court held that coconspirator statements are admissible for RICO convictions if the James standard is met for the RICO conspiracy, but separate determinations are needed for other conspiracies. The evidence was insufficient to support Fernandez's marijuana conspiracy convicti
• United States v. GEE
  695 F.2d 1165· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that while the government committed a Rule 16 violation by failing to produce a transcript, the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Poitier
  623 F.2d 1017· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 19×
  The court held that even if hearsay evidence and jury instructions were improperly admitted, the errors were harmless due to overwhelming other evidence of guilt. The evidence was also sufficient to support Poitier's conviction for conspiracy.
• United States v. Krogstad
  576 F.2d 22· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the non-hearsay evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for causing, aiding, and abetting the submission of a false audit report, and that the indictment was not fatally defective.
• United States v. Traitz
  871 F.2d 368· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the absence of a page from an electronic surveillance order does not render it facially insufficient if the agency and authorizing official are otherwise identifiable, and that the jury instructions regarding the Hobbs Act and advice of counsel defenses were p
• United States v. Martin
  866 F.2d 972· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the search warrants were supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying severance or a new trial.
• United States v. Jackson
  757 F.2d 1486· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant cannot demand pre-trial discovery of a co-conspirator's statement when the government does not intend to call the co-conspirator as a witness.
• Smith v. Updegraff
  744 F.2d 1354· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' actions were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, that the statute of limitations was correctly applied, and that the prosecutor was not immune from suit for actions outside his official duties.
• United States v. Spoone
  741 F.2d 680· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and substantive offenses for most defendants, but reversed substantive convictions for Michael Spoone due to insufficient evidence. The court also affirmed Rusty Spoone's conspiracy conviction despite his age at the time of some acts.
• United States v. Correa-Arroyave
  721 F.2d 792· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper, the prosecutor's comments were not misconduct, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Alvarez
  696 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the failure to conduct a Rule 44(c) inquiry is not reversible error unless an actual conflict of interest is demonstrated. The court also held that sufficient independent evidence linked the appellant to the conspiracy to admit coconspirator statements and sup
• United States v. Kiefer
  694 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that statements made by a coconspirator are admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) if the government proves a conspiracy existed, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict on Counts I, II, and III, but not on Counts IV and V.
• United States v. Alexander and Albert Cranston
  686 F.2d 56· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the trial court's admission of a co-conspirator's statement, despite minor procedural deviations, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. van Scoy
  654 F.2d 257· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress letters, in its comments regarding the death penalty, in refusing to dismiss the indictment, in admitting coconspirator statements, in its handling of alleged threats to defense counsel, in faili
• United States v. Baykowski
  615 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a coconspirator's statement and evidence of prior acts was proper, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilt.
• United States v. Blackshire
  538 F.2d 569· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-31 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Francesco Gambino
  926 F.2d 1355· 3d Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 17×
  The court held that admitting co-conspirator hearsay statements subject to later connection is within the trial court's discretion, and that references to co-conspirators' guilty pleas are permissible to dampen credibility attacks and are not plain error when the jury is properly
• United States v. Perez
  959 F.2d 164· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements without required findings on the record constitutes reversible error. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and rejected claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct
• United States v. Norton
  846 F.2d 521· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Scartz
  838 F.2d 876· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its application of the correct legal standard for determining conspiracy membership.
• United States v. Wiseman
  814 F.2d 826· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the heroin, admitting the co-conspirator's statements, or admitting the introduction as an adoptive admission, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict.
• United States v. Hollins
  811 F.2d 384· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-10 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.