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. David E. Thompson, Inc.
  621 F.2d 1147· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing a nolo contendere plea, admitting coconspirator statements, admitting certain evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that sufficient evidence supported the finding of a single, ongoing con
• United States v. DeVAUGN
  579 F.2d 225· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court should affirm the jury verdict because the trial judge's evidentiary ruling regarding the conspiracy's end was within his discretion.
• United States v. Montgomery
  582 F.2d 514· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that even if a letter could be admissible under the statement against interest exception, the failure to raise this argument at trial precludes finding error on appeal.
• United States v. Bennie Lee Williams
  529 F.2d 557· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-04 ·cited 12×
  Statements made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible as non-hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
• United States v. Smith
  520 F.2d 1245· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a co-conspirator's statement made after the conspiracy's termination, which was exculpatory and implicated the appellant, was inadmissible hearsay.
• United States v. Isabel
  945 F.2d 1193· 1st Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the amendment of the indictment's statutory citation was not prejudicial, the admission of certain testimony was proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the sentencing decision was not erroneous.
• United States v. Burton
  937 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 11×
• United States v. Vowiell
  869 F.2d 1264· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 11×
  The court holds that the conviction of Vowiell should be reversed.
• United States v. Pitocchelli
  830 F.2d 401· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Arambula-Ruiz
  987 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a prior drug conviction for knowledge and intent was proper under Rule 404(b), and co-conspirator statements were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E); errors in admitting prior arrests were harmless, and no Bruton error occurred.
• United States v. Fadi B. Haddad
  976 F.2d 1088· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, that the prosecutor's rebuttal argument was not improper, that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, that the entrapment defense was not established as a matter of law, and
• United States v. Ernie Dimitric Caro
  965 F.2d 1548· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting statements made during a wiretap, in its jury instructions, or in admitting coconspirator statements, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Ramirez
  963 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants, but vacated and remanded one defendant's sentence due to missing findings. The court found no reversible error in the admission of statements, business cards, witness testimony, or in rulings regarding mistrials, j
• United States v. Peralta
  941 F.2d 1003· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a co-conspirator's statements are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) even if the declarant was acquitted of conspiracy charges, and that expert testimony on the Stockholm Syndrome is admissible to explain a victim's behavior.
• United States v. Americo Olivo-Infante
  938 F.2d 1406· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on directed verdicts, severance, hearsay, and jury instructions.
• United States v. Nichols
  910 F.2d 419· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in modifying the pattern jury instruction regarding the substantive law of conspiracy, as the modification was consistent with Supreme Court precedent and circuit law.
• United States v. Womochil
  778 F.2d 1311· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence obtained through wiretaps and oral communications, nor in admitting certain hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Posner
  594 F. Supp. 930· S.D. Fla.· 1984-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the press has a First Amendment right to inspect and copy tax returns admitted into evidence in a criminal trial, which outweighs the defendant's asserted privacy and fair trial interests when the information is already part of the public record.
• United States v. DeROCHE
  726 F.2d 1025· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to adhere to the procedures established in U.S. v. James for admitting co-conspirator hearsay testimony, requiring reversal and remand.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  715 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to elect between counts, nor in using the language of conspiracy in jury instructions.
• United States v. Holder
  652 F.2d 449· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a tape recording of a coconspirator's statement was proper, the trial court did not err in handling an allegedly sleeping juror, and the court's questioning of a witness did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Shursen
  649 F.2d 1250· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conducting an illegal gambling business, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on disclosure of informants, search warrants, admission of ledgers, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Armand Mucci
  630 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen property, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony or denying motions for acquittal and a new trial.
• United States v. Wendall Nicholson
  983 F.2d 983· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the search was lawful based on consent, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in scheduling or jury instructions.
• United States v. Gessa
  971 F.2d 1257· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's sentencing determination regarding the inclusion of the 2500 kilograms of cocaine was unclear and required remand for specific findings on the defendant's intent and capability. The conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Garza
  980 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the arrest was supported by probable cause, the search warrant was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and jury instructions were adequate or any errors were harmless.
• United States v. England
  966 F.2d 403· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, finding sufficient evidence, proper admission of co-conspirator statements, and correct application of Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Osmond W. Banks
  964 F.2d 687· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy, that the government's closing argument did not deprive defendants of a fair trial, and that the drug quantity used for sentencing was properly determined.
• United States v. Thomas
  896 F.2d 589· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that because the appellant failed to preserve his issues for appeal and the trial court did not commit plain error, the judgment is affirmed.
• United States v. de Ortiz
  883 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court's use of 'slight evidence' or 'slight connection' language in conspiracy cases is problematic and should be reexamined or discarded in favor of clearer formulations.
• United States v. Jerkins
  871 F.2d 598· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the defendant attorney's conviction on all seven counts, finding sufficient evidence and proper admission of evidence.
• United States v. Alain Asland Perez
  824 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that co-conspirator statements were properly admitted under the James standard.
• United States v. Roberts
  811 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 8×
  Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(A) applies only to statements made by the defendant, not co-conspirators, and discovery of co-conspirator statements is governed by the Jencks Act.
• United States v. Walker
  796 F.2d 43· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding Wharton's Rule, notice under CIPA, sufficiency of evidence for espionage, admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and overall sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Sihadej Chindawongse
  771 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that tape-recorded co-conspirator statements admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) do not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Head
  755 F.2d 1486· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting witness testimony, limiting cross-examination, admitting co-conspirator statements, or finding sufficient evidence for the convictions.
• United States v. Ga. Waste Sys., Inc.
  731 F.2d 1580· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, prosecutorial arguments regarding a co-conspirator's silence, and the sufficiency of evidence for interstate commerce were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Reynolds
  715 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, which implied the defendant's guilt, constituted prejudicial hearsay error in a joint trial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Piccolo
  696 F.2d 1162· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the conspiracy conviction must be reversed due to a vague indictment and insufficient jury instructions that failed to connect the law to the specific facts of the case. The court also remanded for resentencing on the possession and distribution counts due to
• United States v. Guerro
  693 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Magnuson
  680 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that guilty pleas waived objections to suppression motions, and that the trial court properly admitted evidence and imposed sentence.
• United States v. Miller
  676 F.2d 359· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that mailings incidental to a fraudulent scheme can satisfy the mail fraud statute if their use is reasonably foreseeable, and that statements suppressed under Miranda can be used for impeachment if voluntary and related to direct testimony.
• United States v. Dockins
  659 F.2d 15· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the co-conspirator's statements were admissible because there was substantial independent evidence connecting the defendant to the conspiracy.
• United States v. Perez
  989 F.2d 1574· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a per se reversal rule for admitting coconspirator hearsay without required findings is modified; instead, appellate courts should assess harmless error and may remand for findings if necessary. The hearsay error in this case was harmless.
• United States v. Powell
  982 F.2d 1422· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute marijuana were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  975 F.2d 404· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding coconspirator statements against Rodriguez, finding sufficient evidence to establish his membership in the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Tamez
  941 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) applies to knowingly making a building available for drug distribution, not just 'crack houses,' and that co-conspirator statements were properly admitted. However, the court reversed the sentencing enhancement for being an organizer.
• United States v. Pilarinos
  864 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a derivative entrapment defense because the middlemen were not government agents and there was no evidence of government inducement, and that a statement made by the defendant's agent was admissible.
• United States v. Carroll
  860 F.2d 500· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements and duplicate checks was proper, and therefore the denial of the motion for a new trial was not an error.
• In re United States
  834 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court misinterpreted Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 and the Jencks Act by ordering the government to produce oral statements made by defendants and coconspirators to non-government agents, which were memorialized later.