Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(A)

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

• Shelton v. United States
  169 F.2d 665· D.C. Cir.· 1948-05-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant's numerous asserted errors, when considered individually or in aggregate, did not constitute prejudicial error denying him a fair trial.
• United States v. Reed
  414 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-01 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge held that the trial judge's comments to the defendant and his witness regarding perjury constituted plain error, violating due process and requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Love
  535 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a juror's innocent conversation with a defendant, and a subsequent discussion of that conversation among jurors where the innocence was clarified, did not create prejudice warranting a mistrial. The court also held that a jury instruction on mail fraud includi
• United States v. Ebens
  800 F.2d 1422· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the erroneous exclusion of impeachment evidence regarding key government witnesses constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial. The court also found the admission of prior bad acts testimony to be reversible error.
• United States v. Moore
  616 F.2d 1030· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-14 ·cited 26×
  A notice of appeal filed before sentencing is effective if it gives full notice of the judgment and sentence challenged. A new trial is not required when a defendant is convicted of both robbery and possession of the proceeds, as the possession conviction should be vacated.
• United States v. Miroyan
  577 F.2d 489· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the installation and monitoring of an electronic tracking device on an aircraft, with the owner's consent and while in public airspace, does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, and that probable cause existed for McGinnis' arrest and the subsequent search war
• United States v. Anderson
  447 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, but the admission of tax assessor testimony regarding property values was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial for most counts. However, other evidence supported the convictions for Counts II and III.
• Print Carter O'Neal v. United States
  264 F.2d 809· 5th Cir.· 1959-03-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an oral notice of appeal, even if intended by counsel, is insufficient to perfect an appeal under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the appeal is dismissed for want of timely notice.
• United States v. Perl
  584 F.2d 1316· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-22 ·cited 25×
• United States v. Wainwright
  938 F.2d 1096· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 24×
  A restitution order under the Victim and Witness Protection Act is limited to losses caused by the specific conduct underlying the offense of conviction; an order including losses from unrelated conduct is an illegal sentence and constitutes plain error.
• United States v. Roth
  736 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a coconspirator's testimony about his agreement with the government, even without a limiting instruction, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severanc
• United States v. Golub
  638 F.2d 185· 10th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's lack of preparation time and experience in federal criminal law, necessitating a new trial.
• United States v. Seidel
  620 F.2d 1006· 4th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 24×
  Misjoinder of defendants under Rule 8(b) is not grounds for automatic reversal if the misjoinder constitutes harmless error, meaning no prejudice accrued to the defendant.
• United States v. Belt
  514 F.2d 837· D.C. Cir.· 1975-06-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a remand for a ruling on admissibility of impeachment evidence was a meaningless exercise when the underlying federal charge had been acquitted and the D.C. offense would be subject to the same impeachment rules on retrial.
• United States v. McKINLEY
  493 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective cross-examination and that a witness's improper statement constituted harmless error.
• United States v. Galardi
  476 F.2d 1072· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the exclusion in 18 U.S.C. § 2314 applies to falsely made, forged, or altered U.S. obligations, thus reversing convictions under that statute and related conspiracy charges. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Carter
  440 F.2d 1132· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to permit defense counsel to inquire on voir dire whether prospective jurors were prejudiced against black people.
• United States v. Lewis
  406 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the convictions of Lewis and Sohn for conspiracy and substantive offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that certain evidentiary rulings and limitations on testimony did not constitute reversible error. Lewis's convictions on two counts were dismis
• United States v. Goodman
  285 F.2d 378· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that dismissal of the entire indictment was improper, as lesser remedies like ordering an election or separate trials, or striking surplusage, were available for the alleged defects.
• United States v. Petronio Burgos
  269 F.2d 763· 2d Cir.· 1959-08-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the search and seizure of narcotics was lawful, as the defendant voluntarily surrendered the initial evidence, and the subsequent search was incident to a lawful arrest.
• Beale v. United States
  263 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1959-01-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's actions and instructions, even if containing minor errors, did not constitute reversible error and did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
• Steele v. United States
  243 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior felony conviction and eliciting the defendant's prior silence were not reversible errors, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Spadafora
  181 F.2d 957· 7th Cir.· 1950-05-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession of counterfeit notes and conspiracy was supported by overwhelming evidence, and that no prejudicial errors occurred during the trial.
• Gormley v. United States
  167 F.2d 454· 4th Cir.· 1948-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant, the jury instructions regarding accomplice testimony were adequate, and the admission of certain evidence and the jury's inspection of a cloth sample did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Pupo
  841 F.2d 1235· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 22×
  A conviction under an indictment that fails to allege an essential element of the offense, specifically scienter, is invalid if the objection is raised before verdict. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative does not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Hashagen
  816 F.2d 899· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 22×
  A notice of appeal filed after a verdict but before sentencing, though premature, ripens into an appealable order when the judgment of sentence is entered, and will be treated as timely unless it causes prejudice.
• United States v. LaRita Anne Bolzer
  556 F.2d 948· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the location of surveillance was not fatal because it did not affect the defendants' substantial rights, and that testimony from an ex-wife about clothing was admissible as it did not involve confidential m
• United States v. Knox
  458 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 22×
• Beitel v. United States
  306 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment's description of concealed assets was too vague for the substantive count, but sufficient for the conspiracy count. The search and seizure were deemed proper.
• Landwehr v. United States
  304 F.2d 217· 8th Cir.· 1962-06-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instruction defining 'stolen' to include obtaining a vehicle by means of an insufficient funds check was proper, and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict.
• Masinia v. United States
  296 F.2d 871· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the false testimony was material to the grand jury's investigation and that Counts 2 and 4, while duplicitous, did not require a new trial due to equal concurrent sentencing.
• United States v. Calvert
  498 F.2d 409· 6th Cir.· 1974-06-20 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the admission of fingerprint evidence, implying prior criminal history, was not harmless error and required reversal.
• United States v. van Wyhe
  965 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the exclusion of a book was not an abuse of discretion, and a prosecutor's comment during closing argument was harmless error.
• United States v. Rubio-Villareal
  967 F.2d 294· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 20×
  The court has supervisory power, but its exercise is limited and must be used with caution.
• United States v. Buford L. Peak & Bennie L. Peak
  856 F.2d 825· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The exclusion of hearsay evidence regarding Bennie Peak's state of mind was harmless error and did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  545 F.2d 829· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the judge erred in responding to a jury deadlock note without notifying counsel, the error was harmless and not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Alphonso Mosca, Sr.
  475 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the government's conduct regarding a potential witness was regrettable, it did not require reversal because the appellants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from her absence at trial.
• Daniels v. United States
  357 F.2d 587· D.C. Cir.· 1966-02-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not ordering an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasons for a juror's failure to disclose employment with the Treasury Department.
• Vitoratos v. Maxwell
  351 F.2d 217· 6th Cir.· 1965-09-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied due process or the right to counsel, as any potential errors or deprivations did not affect his substantial rights.
• Mateo J. Azcona v. United States
  257 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of summary charts with conclusionary captions and the denial of a motion for further particulars did not constitute reversible error.
• Ferrari v. United States
  169 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1948-07-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and the evidence regarding the identity of an associate was not fatal, and the trial judge's alleged bias was not demonstrated.
• United States v. Lonedog
  929 F.2d 568· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its rulings on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and that any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Green
  847 F.2d 622· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 18×
  A notice of appeal filed after a conditional guilty plea but before sentencing is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction if the intent to appeal is clear and neither party is prejudiced.
• United States v. Gordon
  641 F.2d 1281· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a variance between the statute cited in the indictment and the statute used for conviction is not fatal if the indictment sufficiently charges an offense and the defendant is not prejudiced. The classification of a public official under a statute is a question
• United States v. MacHado
  457 F.2d 1372· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court's admission of certain cross-examination questions, even if improper, constituted harmless error due to proper jury instructions and overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Miles
  445 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendants' automobile was justified by probable cause, and the exclusion of a co-defendant's testimony was harmless error.
• United States v. Tallman
  437 F.2d 1103· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant seeking a belated appeal must demonstrate that the clerk refused a timely request to file a notice of appeal or was otherwise prevented from filing without fault, and that judicial discretion cannot override explicit rule limitations on appeal time
• United States v. Lookretis
  398 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1968-07-15 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Campbell
  937 F.2d 404· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior bad acts was proper to show intent, plan, or absence of mistake, and that any errors in admitting other testimony were harmless or not plain error.
• United States v. Nino C. Duarte
  901 F.2d 1498· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court may consider letters regarding a defendant's character and background when determining a sentence within the applicable Sentencing Guideline range, and erred in concluding it must ignore them.