Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(A)

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

• Major Leo D. Doyle v. The United States
  599 F.2d 984· Ct. Cl.· 1979-05-16 ·cited 47×
  The absence of Reservists on selection boards was harmless error because reconstituted boards, considering the same officers and standards, also did not select the plaintiffs.
• United States v. Hughes
  658 F.2d 317· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the admission of cocaine into evidence was proper despite a break in chain of custody, and that limitations on cross-examination and exclusion of certain evidence did not prejudice the defendant.
• McWILLIAMS v. United States
  394 F.2d 41· 8th Cir.· 1968-05-01 ·cited 46×
  The court held that pre-trial publicity did not inherently prejudice the jury, the exclusion of certain evidence was not prejudicial, the entrapment defense was not established as a matter of law, and the informer's remark did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Shepherd
  576 F.2d 719· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the judge's remarks after the jury verdict did not prejudice the defendant's right to poll the jury, and that the defendant was not entitled to two attorneys because the crime was no longer a capital offense after Furman v. Georgia removed the possibility of t
• United States v. Faul
  748 F.2d 1204· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to rule on the defendants' venue change request, and that the extensive, prejudicial pre-trial publicity warranted a new trial in a different district.
• Stein v. United States
  313 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1962-12-13 ·cited 44×
  A conspiracy count in an indictment is not void for want of an allegation of an essential element of the substantive offense if the elements are alleged or necessarily implied, and the indictment is sufficient under modern pleading rules.
• Avelardo Felix Sanchez v. United States
  293 F.2d 260· 8th Cir.· 1961-07-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony from Agent Payne and the prejudicial legends on evidence envelopes constituted reversible error, as these likely influenced the jury's verdict in a close case.
• Tomley v. United States
  250 F.2d 549· 5th Cir.· 1957-12-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to renew his motion for acquittal after presenting his own evidence, and that other alleged errors were either not properly preserved for appeal or lacked merit.
• 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.
• Wheatley v. United States
  159 F.2d 599· 4th Cir.· 1946-12-31 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments on the evidence were impermissibly argumentative and prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Primrose
  718 F.2d 1484· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the mailings of invoices and warrants were sufficiently related to the scheme to defraud to support mail fraud convictions, and that the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and the prosecutor's remarks did not constitute reversible error.
• Bushaw v. United States
  353 F.2d 477· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in permitting the government to impeach its own witness, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Silverstein
  737 F.2d 864· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 40×
  The court agrees that out-of-court statements made by co-conspirators after arrest should be admissible, questioning the continued vitality of the Krulewitch rule.
• United States v. Elmore
  423 F.2d 775· 4th Cir.· 1970-03-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of evidence was proper and that prosecutorial remarks, while intemperate, did not prejudice the defendant, thus affirming the conviction.
• Jackson v. United States
  348 F.2d 772· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the jury instruction on intent was erroneous and that the indictment was also deficient, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Brown v. United States
  314 F.2d 293· 9th Cir.· 1963-02-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the unrecorded oral arguments, and therefore, a remand for further proceedings was not warranted.
• Cook v. United States
  354 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1965-12-23 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the government's erroneous opening statement regarding prior marijuana possession by the appellant constituted harmless error, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• 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. Oxman
  740 F.2d 1298· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority misapplied the materiality standard from Agurs and failed to give adequate weight to the trial court's findings, thus disagreeing with the decision to grant a new trial.
• Ware v. United States
  376 F.2d 717· 7th Cir.· 1967-05-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a defendant's absence during jury communication, while a procedural impropriety, does not automatically require reversal if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Kleven v. United States
  240 F.2d 270· 8th Cir.· 1957-01-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, the evidence was sufficient, the supplemental jury charge was not coercive, the failure to re-admonish the jury was not error, and a juror's relative's employment did not demonstrate prejudice.
• United States v. Nickerson
  211 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1954-04-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant's motion to vacate judgments and sentences was properly denied because the alleged indictment defects were waived by a guilty plea, and the charges did not constitute double jeopardy or double punishment.
• United States v. Stevens
  935 F.2d 1380· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification reliability and in excluding evidence of a similar crime, requiring reversal.
• Kirkpatrick v. Blackburn
  777 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 36×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed as a whole, did not deny the defendant due process.
• United States v. Benny ONG
  541 F.2d 331· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the denial of a severance to one defendant may have been erroneous, it constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The admission of certain conversations regarding narcotics was also deemed not to have deprived the defendants of
• Wright v. United States
  389 F.2d 996· 8th Cir.· 1968-02-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a joint resident of an apartment can validly consent to a search of the premises, and that the admission of evidence of other offenses, even if erroneous, was harmless error under the circumstances.
• Clark v. United States
  211 F.2d 100· 8th Cir.· 1954-03-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's method of calculating income, even starting with gross receipts, was legally sufficient to establish tax evasion, and that the admission of certain waivers was harmless error.
• Coleman v. United States
  167 F.2d 837· 5th Cir.· 1948-05-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of certain evidence and the trial court's jury instructions constituted reversible error, affecting the defendants' substantial rights.
• United States v. Greschner
  802 F.2d 373· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to admonish witnesses not to discuss their testimony and in allowing Government counsel at ex parte hearings, these errors were harmless or waived. The court also found no error in denying requests for an expert witness,
• United States v. Posey
  647 F.2d 1048· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony, admitting rebuttal evidence, instructing the jury on the factual determination of cocaine type, or in striking hearsay testimony and admonishing the jury.
• United States v. Turbide
  558 F.2d 1053· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to order the government to produce the informer, and that any misjoinder of counts was harmless error.
• United States v. Quesada
  512 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the appellants' arguments regarding illegal kidnapping, insufficient evidence, coconspirator statements, and prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit.
• Lash v. United States
  221 F.2d 237· 1st Cir.· 1955-04-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's absence during the questioning of a juror was harmless error and that other alleged errors were insubstantial.
• United States v. Weiner
  418 F.2d 849· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-22 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial judge's sentencing discretion was not abused and that a clerical error in the judgment was harmless.
• United States v. Clemente Hernandez-Bermudez
  857 F.2d 50· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if admitting evidence of the defendant's flight was an abuse of discretion, it did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights, and therefore the conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. LeFEVOUR
  798 F.2d 977· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding defense evidence or admitting prosecution evidence, and that the trial was fair despite defense counsel's tactics.
• United States v. Dominguez
  615 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror, the search warrant affidavit was sufficient, and the insanity issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Cordova
  537 F.2d 1073· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute is affirmed, as his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not triggered by the state arrest.
• United States v. Williams
  203 F.2d 572· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that essential facts constituting a crime must be stated in an indictment, and this requirement is not subject to waiver.
• United States v. Polito
  856 F.2d 414· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendant's assignments of error were unavailing, and affirmed his conviction.
• United States v. Gradsky
  434 F.2d 880· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-17 ·cited 31×
  A defendant's presence is not constitutionally required at an evidentiary hearing to determine if wiretap evidence tainted their conviction, especially when represented by competent counsel who deems their presence unnecessary.
• United States v. Pryce
  938 F.2d 1343· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 30×
  The court should not consider the harmless error doctrine when the government fails to argue it, as this would violate the adversary system and judicial neutrality.
• United States v. Laughlin
  772 F.2d 1382· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of a defendant's spontaneous post-arrest statement was not a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, and that comments on his post-arrest silence, while potentially improper, were either invited by the defense or harmless error given the overwhe
• United States v. Stearns
  550 F.2d 1167· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of photographs, despite a premature foundation, was harmless error, and that separate counts for theft and transporting stolen property were permissible.
• 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.
• Earnest T. Page v. United States
  356 F.2d 337· 9th Cir.· 1966-01-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an appeal may be dismissed or affirmed when the issues raised are insubstantial, particularly when concurrent sentences remain valid.
• United States v. Meyer Sigal
  341 F.2d 837· 3d Cir.· 1965-02-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the failure to record the voir dire examination was harmless error and that the defendants effectively waived their right to have it recorded.
• United States v. Crowder
  346 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1964-12-17 ·cited 30×
  A variance between the specific serial numbers of stolen money orders listed in an indictment and the serial numbers proven at trial is not fatal if it does not affect the defendant's substantial rights, particularly if the defendant's defense was not misled by the variance and p
• Guffey v. United States
  310 F.2d 753· 10th Cir.· 1962-12-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that transporting multiple women for prostitution in one instance constitutes a single offense under the White-Slave Traffic Act, and that admitting certain exhibits, though erroneous, was harmless error.
• United States v. Apuzzo
  245 F.2d 416· 2d Cir.· 1957-05-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the admission of a prior arrest was error, it was cured by the trial judge's instructions and did not require reversal.