Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 30

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

• Howard v. United States
  389 F.2d 287· D.C. Cir.· 1967-12-06 ·cited 62×
  The submission of a first-degree murder charge to the jury, even if unsupported by evidence, was harmless error when the jury returned a verdict of second-degree murder, and the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• Bateman v. United States
  212 F.2d 61· 9th Cir.· 1954-04-15 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the appellants' claims of voluntary disclosure, juror bias, prosecutorial misconduct, improper evidence admission/exclusion, and erroneous jury instructions were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Kehm
  799 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-26 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of a videotape was proper, the prosecution's decisions were not selective, withheld impeachment evidence was not material, a deposition was admissible due to witness unavailability, and jury instructions were adequate
• United States v. Freeman
  514 F.2d 171· 8th Cir.· 1975-04-14 ·cited 60×
  The court held that a jury selection plan using only voter lists is permissible even if it results in underrepresentation of a group that votes at a lower rate, absent evidence of deliberate discrimination or obstacles to voting. It also held that unobjected-to trial errors, incl
• United States v. Minker
  312 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1962-12-04 ·cited 60×
  The court held that evidence seized from a trash receptacle located outside the curtilage of the appellant's apartment was admissible, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for willfully attempting to evade wagering excise taxes.
• Franano v. United States
  310 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1962-12-03 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments on the evidence, when viewed in the context of the entire charge and the strength of the evidence, did not constitute prejudicial error and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Williams
  447 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the admission of a wife's out-of-court statement against her husband, the handling of Jencks Act material in the jury's presence, and extraneous judicial remarks praising a government agency constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Golden v. United States
  318 F.2d 357· 1st Cir.· 1963-06-18 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the funds in the escrow account belonged to the bank, and in failing to submit the crucial factual issue of the capacity in which the defendant received the funds to the jury.
• Bryson v. United States
  238 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1956-11-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of affiliation with the Communist Party, and that the trial court properly admitted evidence and instructed the jury.
• United States v. Vasen
  222 F.2d 3· 7th Cir.· 1955-04-15 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a defendant cannot raise issues on appeal that were not objected to at trial, unless they constitute plain error affecting substantial rights.
• Schuermann v. United States
  174 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1949-05-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the defendant's late submission of jury instructions, without providing copies to the prosecution, procedurally barred him from assigning error to the court's refusal to give a specific instruction regarding his failure to testify.
• Ziegler v. United States
  174 F.2d 439· 9th Cir.· 1949-03-18 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in its jury instructions, affirming the judgment.
• United States v. Loya
  807 F.2d 1483· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, and that the procedures for jury instructions, while unusual, did not result in prejudicial error.
• United States v. McCOWN
  711 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.
• United States v. Porter
  431 F.2d 7· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-12 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, even if not perfectly aligned with the new insanity standard, did not constitute reversible error because the defendant failed to establish a viable insanity defense under any standard, and other alleged instructional error
• United States v. Vida
  370 F.2d 759· 6th Cir.· 1966-12-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying a severance, in failing to give a specific cautionary instruction regarding co-conspirator admissions after the conspiracy count was acquitted, or in denying a new trial, as the evidence supported the convictions on the s
• United States v. Ladson
  294 F.2d 535· 2d Cir.· 1961-09-06 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a one-hour delay between arrest and presentment for questioning by an Assistant United States Attorney was not unnecessary under Rule 5(a), and thus did not violate the Mallory rule. Furthermore, the defendant's failure to make a clear objection at trial based
• Herzog v. United States
  226 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1955-10-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence, in its jury instructions, or in denying the request to inspect grand jury testimony, and that objections to jury instructions not made before the jury retired are foreclosed from appellate review.
• 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. Wander
  601 F.2d 1251· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-27 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the interstate travel and use of facilities were too casual and incidental to establish federal jurisdiction under the Travel Act for the alleged extortion scheme.
• United States v. Wright
  542 F.2d 975· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and admitting certain rebuttal testimony, and that procedural rules regarding jury instructions were not met for review.
• United States v. Gale Nace and Nathan J. Warren, Sr.
  561 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 53×
  The conviction should be reversed because the prosecution injected grossly inflammatory and prejudicial evidence near the end of the trial.
• United States v. Crow
  523 F.2d 955· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that applying 18 U.S.C. § 1153 to subject an Indian to a greater sentence than a non-Indian for the same offense violates the Fifth Amendment. The court also held that jury instructions for fourth-degree burglary did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Hines
  470 F.2d 225· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 52×
  References to pre-trial photographic identifications used to bolster in-court identifications are admissible, even if they might suggest a prior criminal record, as their probative value outweighs the speculative prejudice. Ineffective assistance of counsel was not demonstrated.
• United States v. Phillips
  375 F.2d 75· 7th Cir.· 1967-03-07 ·cited 52×
  The admission of testimony detailing a separate transaction between the defendant and Tommie Phillips, over repeated objection, prejudiced the defendant and denied him a fair trial.
• Teasley v. United States
  292 F.2d 460· 9th Cir.· 1961-07-10 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the arrest and subsequent search were lawful, and the admission of evidence of an independent offense was proper under the circumstances and jury instructions. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession for the statutory presum
• United States v. Silas Jones
  642 F.2d 909· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and violating the Travel Act, and that the jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, were adequate and any procedural error was harmless.
• United States v. Carroll
  582 F.2d 942· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that a trial court's jury instruction that improperly broadened the scope of a conspiracy charge constitutes plain error requiring reversal, even without a timely objection. The court also held that denial of a continuance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Windisch v. United States
  295 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1961-11-03 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's verdict of tax evasion and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in denying the motion for mistrial.
• Hodges v. United States
  243 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-12 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause obtained from observation in an open field, but reversed Hodges' conviction due to the trial court improperly requiring his counsel to make objections to the jury charge in the presence of the jury.
• United States v. Porter
  821 F.2d 968· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 50×
  The dissenting judge would reverse all convictions and grant new trials due to cumulative errors in admitting evidence and improperly joining defendants.
• United States v. Carson
  464 F.2d 424· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the jury charge on conspiracy to commit bribery was not misleading, and the appellant's conduct constituted an official act within the meaning of the bribery statute. The court also rejected the appellant's claims regarding duplicity in the conspiracy count an
• United States v. Esquer
  459 F.2d 431· 7th Cir.· 1972-04-18 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that no reversible error occurred regarding witness shackling, voir dire, jury instructions, or prosecutorial remarks.
• Stanley v. United States
  245 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1957-05-22 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and violating the Federal Train Wreck Act, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Miller
  688 F.2d 652· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-21 ·cited 49×
  The court held that a theft victim's search of a suspect's property, even with prior police contact and consent, was not a government search subject to Fourth Amendment requirements because the victim acted on his own initiative to recover his property and gained access via conse
• United States v. Daily
  921 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the refusal of a requested jury instruction on character evidence, despite the defendants' acquittal on most charges and conviction on conspiracy, constituted plain error affecting substantial rights to a fair trial.
• United States v. Anne C. Voss
  787 F.2d 393· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the interstate commerce element of the arson charge was erroneous because it did not require the jury to find sufficient facts to establish a nexus between the property and interstate commerce. The court reversed the arson convictions b
• 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. 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. Borello
  766 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that admitting a government witness's cooperation agreement into evidence on direct examination, before the witness's credibility was attacked, was improper and not harmless error.
• United States v. Hyman
  741 F.2d 906· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 46×
• Findley v. United States
  362 F.2d 921· 10th Cir.· 1966-07-01 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the jury instructions were insufficient because they failed to adequately inform the jury that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the property belonged to and was stolen from the government.
• Tyrrell v. United States
  200 F.2d 8· 9th Cir.· 1952-11-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the registrant's due process rights were not violated and that there was a basis in fact for his classification, affirming the conviction.
• 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. Jasper Wycoff, Jr.
  545 F.2d 679· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-15 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while eliciting testimony about an arrestee's post-arrest silence and request for counsel was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence and prompt jury admonitions. The court also found that a change in jury instructions wit
• Armstrong v. United States
  228 F.2d 764· 8th Cir.· 1956-01-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a juror's testimony cannot be used to impeach a jury's verdict, and that the defendant's failure to properly preserve objections to jury instructions barred review.
• Fallen v. United States
  220 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding other offenses was harmful error as to one defendant, requiring reversal, but affirmed the convictions of other defendants.
• Marteney v. United States
  218 F.2d 258· 10th Cir.· 1954-12-30 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the jury instructions were proper, and the prosecutor's cross-examination was not prejudicial, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Bazzell
  187 F.2d 878· 7th Cir.· 1951-03-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for kidnapping and conspiracy, and that venue and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• United States v. Pommerening
  500 F.2d 92· 10th Cir.· 1974-07-01 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the bribery statute was not unconstitutionally vague, the perjury convictions were valid, and evidence obtained without Miranda warnings was admissible in this context. However, the assessment of certain costs was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.