Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 30

439 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Hyde
  448 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 165×
• Poliafico v. United States
  237 F.2d 97· 6th Cir.· 1956-08-31 ·cited 158×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction, and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Lovely v. United States
  169 F.2d 386· 4th Cir.· 1948-08-10 ·cited 141×
  The admission of testimony regarding a prior, unrelated rape was reversible error because it was not relevant to any issue in the current case and served only to prejudice the defendant. Additionally, an erroneous jury instruction regarding parole eligibility constituted prejudic
• United States v. Currens
  290 F.2d 751· 3d Cir.· 1961-05-01 ·cited 135×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction and commitment, believing the traditional insanity charge did not prejudice the defendant and that the defendant would receive beneficial psychiatric treatment under the Youth Correction Act.
• Verdugo v. United States
  402 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-16 ·cited 132×
  The dissenting judge held that illegally seized evidence, though inadmissible for determining guilt, may be considered by the sentencing judge. The judge also stated there was no error in not providing the defendant with a copy of the presentence report.
• United States v. Griffin
  818 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 124×
  The court held that most of the defendant's claims were procedurally defaulted and not reviewable as plain error, and the remaining evidentiary rulings were either properly admitted or not preserved for appeal.
• United States v. James "Jamie" Douglas
  818 F.2d 1317· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 119×
  The court held that the defendants' Fifth Amendment rights were violated because the jury was inadequately instructed on their theory of defense, which was that they were mere buyers and not co-conspirators.
• Norris v. United States
  687 F.2d 899· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 119×
• United States v. Scott
  425 F.2d 55· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-06 ·cited 118×
  The court should exercise its discretion against applying the plain error rule when a defendant fails to object to a presumption instruction and their guilt is evident.
• United States v. Earnest McCLAIN
  440 F.2d 241· D.C. Cir.· 1971-01-27 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a prior act of violence without a cautionary instruction to the jury constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Ibrahim Abushi
  682 F.2d 1289· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction and that the joinder and severance rulings were not an abuse of discretion. The entrapment defense was also rejected.
• Schaffer v. United States
  221 F.2d 17· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-08 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying one defendant's motion for severance and in its handling of the admissibility of a confession, requiring reversal for both defendants.
• United States v. Barrett
  539 F.2d 244· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 104×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's knowledge of alarm systems was admissible to prove identity, and that a statement against interest offered to exculpate the accused must be assessed for trustworthiness with corroborating circumstances.
• United States v. Gaston Gerald
  624 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 102×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the voir dire, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, or indictment.
• Las Vegas Merch. Plumbers Ass'n v. United States
  210 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1954-02-01 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged a violation of the Sherman Act and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also found the trial court's jury instructions and procedural compliance with Rule 30 to be proper.
• United States v. Massiah
  307 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-27 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on all elements of conspiracy, specifically knowledge of illegal importation, constituted plain error requiring reversal of the conspiracy convictions. It also held that admissions obtained from a defendant after
• Johnson v. United States
  291 F.2d 150· 8th Cir.· 1961-06-07 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, did not err in denying a new trial based on recantation, and properly refused jury instructions regarding witness availability and impeachment, and that the jury instructions on the burden
• United States v. Abe Bender
  218 F.2d 869· 7th Cir.· 1955-01-12 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the burden of proving deductions or exclusions rests with the taxpayer once the government establishes unreported income, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or admitting evidence.
• United States v. Arteaga-Limones
  529 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 96×
• McMILLEN v. United States
  386 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the "plain error" standard applied due to the jury instructions on witness presumption and the lack of cautionary instructions for accomplice testimony, warranting reversal for one appellant but not the other due to differing levels of corroborating evidence.
• United States v. Fernandez
  456 F.2d 638· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-24 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of errors, including an impermissibly suggestive photographic identification and procedural errors regarding jury instructions, required reversal and a new trial.
• United States v. Inman
  352 F.2d 954· 4th Cir.· 1965-11-18 ·cited 94×
  A confession's admissibility must be determined by the trial court, but the ultimate question of its voluntariness must be submitted to the jury.
• United States v. Noble C. Beasley
  519 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 90×
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy and tax evasion but reversed the sentence for filing a fraudulent tax return, finding no plain error in the jury instructions or the denial of severance.
• United States v. Nance
  502 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-20 ·cited 88×
  The court held that while a scheme to defraud was proven, it was not proven to have originated early enough to support convictions on counts involving mailings prior to the scheme's inception. Evidence was insufficient for those counts but sufficient for later counts.
• Brown v. United States
  222 F.2d 293· 9th Cir.· 1955-04-14 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported the conviction, and that appellate courts cannot review sentences within statutory limits.
• United States v. Lyles
  593 F.2d 182· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by modifying its jury instructions after summations, denying severance motions, or admitting certain evidence, as no substantial prejudice was demonstrated.
• United States v. Stirling
  571 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the defendant's grand jury testimony into evidence.
• Wheeler v. United States
  211 F.2d 19· D.C. Cir.· 1953-11-27 ·cited 82×
  The court held that medical slides made in the regular course of hospital business are admissible under the Business Records Act, and a child's statement to her grandmother shortly after an alleged assault is admissible as a spontaneous exclamation.
• United States v. Pool
  660 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 81×
  A district court may consider a defendant's refusal to cooperate with an investigation as a factor in sentencing, provided the defendant raises any Fifth Amendment claims timely. The court also found that restricting cross-examination and giving a partial entrapment instruction w
• United States v. Whitaker
  447 F.2d 314· D.C. Cir.· 1971-05-26 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on unlawful entry as a lesser included offense of first-degree burglary when the evidence supported such a charge.
• Tillery v. United States
  411 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury to view accomplice testimony with caution, especially when it was the sole evidence against the defendant and the accomplice had provided contradictory statements.
• Marson v. United States
  203 F.2d 904· 6th Cir.· 1953-04-17 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by prejudicially questioning the jury about alleged criminal activities and by failing to interrogate the jury about a prejudicial newspaper article.
• Smith v. United States
  331 F.2d 784· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-20 ·cited 78×
• Villaroman v. United States
  184 F.2d 261· D.C. Cir.· 1950-07-24 ·cited 78×
  The court held that refusing to allow cross-examination about a pending civil suit by the complaining witness was prejudicial error, and that a requested jury instruction on good character evidence should have been given.
• Lowell Lyons v. United States
  325 F.2d 370· 9th Cir.· 1963-11-20 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain or reversible error in its jury instructions or in denying motions for disqualification and transfer, and that the appellant received adequate representation.
• Gendron v. United States
  295 F.2d 897· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-08 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to appeal on jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence by failing to properly object or renew motions below, and that the indictment was not fatally defective. The court also found no plain error regarding the search and seiz
• United States v. Espinosa
  827 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the initial detention and subsequent arrest were based on reasonable suspicion and not a pretext for a search, and that the search warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. Expert testimony was properly admitted.
• United States v. Gallagher
  576 F.2d 1028· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy and substantive offenses related to bank fraud, and that the trial judge's conduct did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Porter
  764 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-14 ·cited 74×
  The court held that post-arrest statements obtained after a suspect invoked their right to counsel, without the suspect initiating further communication, are inadmissible. The court also held that the procuring agent theory is not a valid defense under current drug distribution s
• United States v. Watson
  669 F.2d 1374· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the exclusion of defense witnesses offering opinion testimony regarding the government's key witness's credibility was prejudicial error requiring reversal, as it violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process and was not harmless beyond
• United States v. Kessi
  868 F.2d 1097· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 71×
  The court held that Kessi's conviction was affirmed because he failed to properly object to jury instructions, the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions for aiding and abetting securities fraud, mail fraud, and being an accessory after the fact, and the prosecutor's
• United States v. Partin
  493 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the total financial benefits paid to material witnesses and the failure to provide specific jury instructions on the impeachment of witnesses constituted reversible error.
• 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. Nimrod Solomon and George Sommer
  422 F.2d 1110· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 68×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court erred by not properly interrogating jurors individually and separately regarding prejudicial publicity, contrary to established precedent.
• Henderson v. United States
  425 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-21 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the jury instruction on intent to defraud was erroneous and constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial. It also held that the mailings in Counts 3 and 6 were not in furtherance of the scheme to defraud.
• United States v. Stoy Decker
  304 F.2d 702· 6th Cir.· 1962-06-29 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in denying continuances, upholding the constitutionality of the statute, and determining the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Burke
  700 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 65×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in quashing a subpoena for reporter's documents, nor in its response to a jury inquiry about partial verdicts, and that a statement by a defendant was properly treated as an admission.
• United States v. Nunziato Fusaro
  708 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 63×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of intent and knowledge, that jury instructions were proper, and that procedural and evidentiary objections lacked merit.
• United States v. Raper
  676 F.2d 841· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed the conviction of appellant Childs and Raper for unlawful possession of heroin with intent to distribute, finding sufficient evidence for constructive possession.
• Wangrow v. United States (two cases)
  399 F.2d 106· 8th Cir.· 1968-07-22 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was permissible and not prejudicial, and that evidence obtained through searches was lawful, affirming the convictions.