Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 30

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

• United States v. Dena Anne Requarth
  847 F.2d 1249· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve her objection to the jury instructions, and the omission of her proposed 'presence' instruction did not constitute plain error because the essential elements were covered by other instructions.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  498 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 42×
  The convictions for drug offenses and firearm charges are affirmed, but the sentences for Rodriguez and Vega are vacated due to plain error in the sentencing proceedings.
• United States v. Samuel Dunkel & Co., Inc.
  173 F.2d 506· 2d Cir.· 1949-03-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that inquiring about the numerical division of a jury, even without revealing specific numbers, constitutes reversible error because it can exert coercive influence on the jury's deliberations.
• United States v. Hernandez
  730 F.2d 895· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that threats against a witness to obtain evidence are no longer covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1503 after the enactment of the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
• United States v. Hyson
  721 F.2d 856· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-23 ·cited 40×
  There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict against Gomes for his involvement in the drug conspiracy.
• United States v. Newton P. VAN Drunen
  501 F.2d 1393· 7th Cir.· 1974-07-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an unintentional omission of 'not' in a jury instruction regarding a defendant's right to testify was not reversible error, and the privilege against spousal testimony does not apply when spouses participate in the criminal enterprise.
• United States v. Martin
  475 F.2d 943· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while a jury instruction on the burden of proof for intoxication was erroneous, it did not affect substantial rights and was harmless error when considered with the entire charge and evidence.
• United States v. Jess Boss Safley
  408 F.2d 603· 4th Cir.· 1969-03-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the denial of a severance was not reversible error, nor was the sufficiency of evidence regarding FDIC insurance or a flawed jury instruction, as any prejudice was either absent or harmless.
• Friedman v. United States
  381 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress, finding that consent to search was validly given by the owner of the premises. The court also held that alleged prosecutorial misconduct and a jury instruction on reasonable doubt did not consti
• Northcraft v. United States
  271 F.2d 184· 8th Cir.· 1959-10-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for mail fraud and that the trial court's comments and instructions were proper.
• United States v. Coady
  809 F.2d 119· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the defendant's withdrawal of the entrapment defense mid-trial barred its later revival, and that his participation in the financial aspect of the drug transaction constituted aiding and abetting distribution, even if the physical transfer occurred earlier.
• Edwards v. United States
  286 F.2d 681· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-23 ·cited 39×
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction, which stated a co-defendant had admitted guilt and pleaded guilty when there was no proof of this, was not harmless error and required reversal.
• United States v. Corbin
  590 F.2d 398· 1st Cir.· 1979-01-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court adequately investigated the juror bias allegation, its jury instructions were sufficient, and the evidence was adequate to support the conviction.
• Austin v. United States
  414 F.2d 1155· D.C. Cir.· 1969-05-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the flight instruction was erroneous, it was not plain error and thus harmless. The indictment was not deficient for failing to explicitly state specific intent.
• Martin v. United States
  404 F.2d 640· 10th Cir.· 1968-12-06 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the prosecution's cross-examination into the defendant's prior felony conviction was permissible as it was relevant to intent and within the scope opened by the defendant's direct testimony. The court also held that the jury instructions, despite a minor omiss
• Hayes v. United States
  238 F.2d 318· 10th Cir.· 1956-10-16 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the sufficiency of evidence was previously established, the admissibility of the tax return was correct, new legal arguments were not preserved, and the trial judge's conduct was not prejudicial.
• McKENNA v. United States
  232 F.2d 431· 8th Cir.· 1956-04-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for tax evasion was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings.
• Gariepy v. United States
  220 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1955-03-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for wilful income tax evasion, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in denying the challenge to the jury panel.
• United States v. Polowichak
  783 F.2d 410· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole and in the context of the entire trial, adequately conveyed the requirement of specific intent for the Travel Act convictions, and thus there was no plain error.
• United States v. Kopel
  552 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 36×
  It was impermissible to show the jury that Kopel consulted his attorney before answering incriminating questions, as this violates due process principles established in Doyle v. Ohio.
• United States v. Abraham
  541 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a jury instruction on multiple conspiracies is required when there is a possibility of variance between the indictment and the evidence, allowing the jury to determine if one or several agreements existed.
• United States v. Bass
  425 F.2d 161· 7th Cir.· 1970-04-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instruction creating a conclusive presumption of knowledge from a signature alone was erroneous, and refusing a jury instruction on the deductibility of payments as salary was prejudicial error.
• Tanner v. United States
  401 F.2d 281· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Rowell v. United States
  368 F.2d 957· 8th Cir.· 1966-11-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments on the evidence and the law regarding entrapment, while potentially borderline, were not prejudicial and did not affect the substantial rights of the appellant, thus affirming the conviction.
• Mims v. United States
  254 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to give specific jury instructions regarding accomplice and perjurer testimony, nor in refusing to allow inquiry into the business relationship between the defendant and the father of an alleged accomplice, as the evidenc
• McDONOUGH v. United States
  248 F.2d 725· 8th Cir.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a defendant who fails to renew a motion for judgment of acquittal after presenting defense testimony waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. The court also held that objections to jury instructions must be specific to be preser
• United States v. Cummings
  468 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a prosecutor's argument improperly suggested the jury convict based on the indictment process rather than evidence, requiring reversal. It also found certain jury instructions flawed regarding the presumption of innocence.
• United States v. Perplies
  165 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1948-01-27 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for selling beer over the ceiling price was supported by sufficient evidence, and the jury instructions, while not perfect, substantially complied with the law given the nature of the offense.
• United States v. Windfelder
  790 F.2d 576· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's intentions and Lauretta Windfelder's intent, nor did it err in its jury instructions, and any error in admitting testimony about the defendant's intent was harmless.
• United States v. Gere
  662 F.2d 1291· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the mail fraud convictions due to instructional errors affecting substantial rights.
• United States v. Clavey
  565 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to release grand jury testimony, excluding rebuttal evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that any errors in handling jury communications were harmless.
• United States v. Jenkins
  470 F.2d 1061· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was not void due to government participation, nor tainted by the failure to produce a witness, nor improperly denied immunity to a witness, nor improperly excluded polygraph evidence, and that objections to jury instructions were wai
• Robison v. United States
  379 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court's instructions and evidentiary rulings were not prejudicial error.
• Gilbert v. United States
  307 F.2d 322· 9th Cir.· 1962-08-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their procedural objections regarding unlawful arrest, search, and jury instructions lacked merit.
• Burns v. United States
  286 F.2d 152· 10th Cir.· 1961-01-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for violations of the Securities Act, and that the trial court did not err in excluding certain testimony or restricting examination.
• United States v. Switzer
  252 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective, the government established a prima facie case, and the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Reese
  568 F.2d 1246· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the admission of rebuttal testimony regarding prior bad acts was proper to show intent and knowledge, and that the jury instructions, while containing a minor error, did not constitute plain error. The admission of hospital records was also proper. Finally, th
• United States v. Wilkinson
  926 F.2d 22· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary, the evidence was sufficient to support the firearm conviction, the trial court's jury instructions were adequate, the 1988 search was lawful, and the sentence enhancement under t
• United States v. De La Cruz
  902 F.2d 121· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, except for the issue of jury empanelment by a magistrate, which was remanded for further proceedings.
• United States v. Goodface
  835 F.2d 1233· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing a self-defense instruction due to insufficient evidence and that the mandatory sentencing provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) does not violate due process or conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
• Walker v. United States
  418 F.2d 1116· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in failing to inform defense counsel of the intent to charge a lesser included offense before summation, this error was not prejudicial and did not warrant reversal.
• Lanier Allison Ramer v. United States
  390 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-06 ·cited 32×
• Dunn v. United States
  318 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by failing to provide a cautionary instruction to the jury regarding accomplice testimony, especially given the jury's deadlock.
• Bram v. United States
  226 F.2d 858· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that evidence of prior offenses is admissible if relevant to the charged crime, and that cross-examination of alibi witnesses to explore bias or interest is permissible. The court also found the jury instructions to be fair and impartial.
• Gicinto v. United States
  212 F.2d 8· 8th Cir.· 1954-04-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions regarding a mistrial due to a newspaper article, the admission of a passport, and errors in jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Barrett
  766 F.2d 609· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were not erroneously refused.
• United States v. Derrell Darnell Hamilton
  684 F.2d 380· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by failing to give a requested alibi instruction for Counts One and Two, but found no error in the admission of identification evidence or prior act evidence.
• United States v. Robertson
  659 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and that any errors in jury instructions were harmless.
• United States v. Kehoe
  562 F.2d 65· 1st Cir.· 1977-08-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's false statements to the grand jury were material and that the trial court properly admitted evidence of co-conspirator statements and the recording secretary's notes.
• United States v. Faulkner
  538 F.2d 724· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in refusing to allow chemical testing of a ledger, in its use of a tape transcript for impeachment, in admitting certain testimony, or in denying a continuance for new counsel.