Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 30

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

• United States v. Cady
  495 F.2d 742· 8th Cir.· 1974-04-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the jury instructions were not plain error, and the refusal to give a lesser included offense instruction was proper.
• United States v. Devall
  462 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of custodial statements was not erroneous, and the failure to submit the issue of the money orders' value to the jury did not constitute plain error given the undisputed evidence of value.
• United States v. Rouse
  452 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of the indictment and the defendant's post-arrest statement were proper, and any ambiguity in the jury instructions was harmless error.
• United States v. Edwards
  443 F.2d 1286· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence adequately proved the defendant was under oath, the jury instructions were proper, the admission of evidence of the defendant's escape was not an abuse of discretion, and the evidence was sufficient to support a conv
• Bennie Ray Smith v. United States
  390 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct on entrapment when the defense was not asserted and no objection was made, nor did it err in denying the motion to suppress statements made prior to arraignment.
• Starks v. United States
  316 F.2d 45· 9th Cir.· 1963-04-11 ·cited 30×
  Conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm is affirmed, as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to charges of possession of an unregistered weapon, and the statute's burden-shifting provision was not invoked or objected to.
• Strangway v. United States
  312 F.2d 283· 9th Cir.· 1963-01-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a partial appellate record prevents review of sufficiency of evidence claims, and that various jury instructions and evidentiary issues raised by the defendant did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Schmidt
  471 F.2d 385· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for willful misapplication of bank funds and that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Mancuso
  423 F.2d 23· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-17 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Harris
  409 F.2d 77· 4th Cir.· 1969-04-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying pretrial discovery motions, motions to sequester witnesses, motions for severance, or motions for acquittal, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• Moore v. United States
  356 F.2d 39· 5th Cir.· 1966-02-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury instructions were insufficient because they failed to adequately explain the elements of aiding and abetting, specifically the requirement of criminal intent and active participation.
• Alverez v. United States
  282 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1960-09-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding voir dire, character evidence, and the unavailability of a witness, and that the appellant received a fair trial.
• Smith v. United States
  283 F.2d 16· 6th Cir.· 1960-08-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding impeachment testimony because no proper foundation was laid on cross-examination, and the proffered testimony was either unresponsive or did not demonstrate bias.
• Grant v. United States
  255 F.2d 341· 6th Cir.· 1958-05-29 ·cited 28×
  Evidence of other offenses is admissible if it falls within recognized exceptions, and inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate a conviction.
• United States v. David A. Sturman (90-3147)
  951 F.2d 1466· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the 'defraud' clause of 18 U.S.C. § 371 was applicable to the broad conspiracy charged, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of David Sturman and Ralph Levine. The court also found that the willfulness element for Reuben Sturman's fa
• United States v. Gantos
  817 F.2d 41· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give specific intent jury instructions, as the statute clearly defines the required mental state as intentional trafficking and knowing use of a counterfeit mark.
• United States v. Harvill
  501 F.2d 295· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to inform counsel of his decision not to give requested jury instructions, after initially indicating he would, violated Rule 30 and required reversal due to potential prejudice to the defense's closing argument.
• United States v. Payero
  888 F.2d 928· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately explained the 'during and in relation to' element of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and that the defendant's failure to object at trial precluded appellate review of certain issues.
• United States v. Kuecker
  740 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of a prior conviction for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) without a balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect, and that the jury instructions
• United States v. Crum
  529 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) applies to individuals who aid and abet the preparation of false tax returns, even if they are not the preparers themselves. The court also held that reliance on advice of counsel is not a complete defense and that the defendant's counsel f
• United States v. Martin
  525 F.2d 703· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a defendant's refusal to obey a lawful court order to answer a question, even when the defendant is the witness, constitutes criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) without requiring proof of obstruction of justice.
• United States v. Clay
  495 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendants for possession of burglary tools, and that evidence of prior criminal conduct was admissible to prove conspiracy and intent. The jury instructions on attempt were adequate, and the denial of motions to int
• United States v. DeCARLO
  458 F.2d 358· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-04 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the victim's cause of death and in failing to instruct the jury on its relevance.
• RAY v. United States
  412 F.2d 1052· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's various claims of error, including issues with arrest warrants, suppression of evidence, jury instructions, and cross-examination limitations, did not warrant reversal of his conviction.
• Aggers v. United States
  366 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1966-10-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts and that no prejudicial error was committed during the trial for either defendant.
• Benatar v. United States
  209 F.2d 734· 9th Cir.· 1954-01-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the conspiracy conviction and that the trial court's instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• Wright v. United States
  192 F.2d 595· 9th Cir.· 1951-11-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior possession of narcotics was permissible to prove knowledge, and the trial court's instructions adequately covered the issues, thus no reversible error occurred.
• United States v. Levi
  177 F.2d 827· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-07 ·cited 26×
  The majority holds that asking an impeaching question about a conviction that did not exist constituted prejudicial error.
• Estep v. United States
  223 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction on mail fraud and securities act charges was supported by sufficient evidence and that his procedural objections lacked merit.
• United States v. Santos
  932 F.2d 244· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-03 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court's failure to define 'preponderance of the evidence' and instruct on threats to children did not constitute plain error.
• Solomon Monk v. Colonel Gordon N. Zelez
  901 F.2d 885· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the military judge's reasonable doubt instruction impermissibly lessened the prosecution's burden of proof, violating the defendant's due process rights.
• United States v. Pena
  897 F.2d 1075· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of Chitty's statements, though an error, was harmless, and that Pena failed to demonstrate prejudice from the joint trial or the jury instructions.
• United States v. Grossman
  843 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a superseding indictment returned shortly before trial, nor in failing to grant a continuance, and that the government was not obligated to provide grand jury testimony claimed to b
• United States v. Gambina
  564 F.2d 22· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in implementing security measures, that jury instructions were proper, and that statements by the trial court did not prejudice the defendant's right against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Cardall
  550 F.2d 604· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that alleged judicial misconduct and procedural errors did not prejudice the defendants or warrant reversal of their convictions.
• United States v. Magdaleno Hermosillo-Nanez
  545 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find predisposition, and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not cause prejudice.
• United States v. Miriani
  422 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant received a fair trial and that his various objections lacked merit or were not properly preserved for appeal.
• Ashe v. United States
  288 F.2d 725· 6th Cir.· 1961-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in denying the motion for a new trial.
• Loveless v. United States
  260 F.2d 487· D.C. Cir.· 1958-10-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to allow defense counsel to re-argue the manslaughter charge after initially refusing it and then deciding to give it.
• United States v. Thayer
  209 F.2d 534· 7th Cir.· 1954-01-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for selling beer to Native American wards of the government was supported by substantial evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Angel
  201 F.2d 531· 7th Cir.· 1953-02-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's admission, corroborated by independent evidence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Dyer Act, and that the admission of the defendant's gun was proper.
• United States v. Augustine
  189 F.2d 587· 3d Cir.· 1951-05-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that undue restriction on cross-examination of a key witness necessitates a new trial, despite other points not warranting reversal.
• United States v. Crescent-Kelvan Co.
  164 F.2d 582· 3d Cir.· 1948-01-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions were insufficient regarding the definition of 'common or usual name' for misbranding and confusing on the standard of proof (reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence), necessitating reversal.
• United States v. Medved
  905 F.2d 935· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings on cross-examination, the use of a toy gun as a dangerous weapon, the jury instructions on insanity, or the sentencing departure, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
• United States v. Gaskins
  849 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court's violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, by giving an aiding and abetting instruction after stating it would not, prejudiced the defendant and required reversal of both counts.
• United States v. Phillips
  869 F.2d 1361· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge argues that the conviction should be reversed because the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment and because the jury was not instructed that it must unanimously agree on the specific criminal act committed.
• United States v. McCULLAH
  745 F.2d 350· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 22×
• United States v. McCASKILL
  676 F.2d 995· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting armed bank robbery was not reversible error, as he knew his co-defendants were armed, and he failed to properly object to the jury instructions at trial.
• Aloysius A. J. Flute v. The United States
  535 F.2d 624· Ct. Cl.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the court-martial conviction because the alleged errors did not rise to a constitutional level, and the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) acted within its discretion and did not violate due process or its own regu
• United States v. Pinto
  503 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-31 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while the trial judge's comments on the odds were potentially problematic, they did not constitute plain error given the overwhelming evidence and the defendant's failure to make a specific objection.