Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(A)

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

• United States v. Mazzanti
  888 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
• United States v. Doyle E. Campbell
  845 F.2d 1374· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court should have excluded testimony of patients not listed in the indictment as it was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove character rather than intent for the charged offenses.
• United States v. Larranaga
  787 F.2d 489· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that materiality in perjury cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 is a question of law for the court, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction based on the submission of false minutes.
• United States v. Sarvis
  523 F.2d 1177· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's cautionary instruction regarding immunized witnesses, while not perfectly conforming to prior directions, was harmless error, and the delay between arrest and retrial did not violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Newman
  476 F.2d 733· 3d Cir.· 1973-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's requests to call the United States Attorney as a witness or to examine a tape recording, nor did it commit plain error in its jury charge.
• United States v. Graham
  464 F.2d 1073· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government failed to prove the substance sold on November 16, 1970, was heroin, requiring reversal of those convictions. Other convictions were affirmed.
• Cooper v. United States
  357 F.2d 274· D.C. Cir.· 1966-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to submit Cooper's case to the jury and that the jury instructions, including those on aiding and abetting and identification, were not plain error.
• Cannady v. United States
  351 F.2d 796· D.C. Cir.· 1965-08-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence, which was not limited to impeachment purposes and served to undermine the defendant's alibi, constituted reversible error.
• DYE v. Beryl C. Sacks
  279 F.2d 834· 6th Cir.· 1960-06-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus after exhausting state remedies and failing to secure certiorari cannot use habeas corpus to relitigate issues already decided adversely in state courts, especially when no substantial federal question is presented.
• United States v. Fawaz Yunis
  859 F.2d 953· D.C. Cir.· 1988-10-14 ·cited 15×
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to confessions obtained from aliens interrogated abroad by U.S. agents, and such confessions must be suppressed if obtained in violation of this right.
• United States v. Johnson
  927 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the district court erroneously admitted a co-conspirator's statement, the error was harmless because other substantial evidence proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Graci
  504 F.2d 411· 3d Cir.· 1974-10-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the improper joinder of two indictments for trial, which could not have been joined in a single indictment, constituted reversible error, especially when the error was not harmless due to prejudicial cross-examination.
• United States v. Marshall
  440 F.2d 195· D.C. Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the pistol was admissible evidence under Terry v. Ohio, but the sentence was invalid because proof of prior convictions was not presented in the defendant's presence, violating his right to allocution.
• Ping v. United States
  407 F.2d 157· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's statement was voluntary and the summaries of his checking accounts were admissible, despite a potentially conclusionary column, because their inclusion did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
• United States v. Russo
  284 F.2d 539· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of conviction for transporting and conspiring to transport obscene films in interstate commerce, and that any errors were harmless.
• Lafoon v. United States
  250 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1958-01-14 ·cited 14×
  A guilty plea waives the right to be tried in the specific division where the offense was committed.
• Barshop v. United States
  192 F.2d 699· 5th Cir.· 1951-11-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that any errors, including the exclusion of a letter, did not affect substantial rights and were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and subsequent curative testimony.
• United States v. Thurston
  771 F.2d 449· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that the identification procedures and admission of motive evidence were not erroneous.
• United States v. Castaneda-Reyes
  703 F.2d 522· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's sanity, the prosecutor's question was harmless error, the exclusion of the foreign document was proper, and the jury instructions on general intent were adequate.
• United States v. Davis
  936 F.2d 352· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was harmless error and that the defendant's 1971 burglary conviction counted towards the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement because his civil rights restoration did not override federal firearm prohibitions.
• United States v. Neuroth
  809 F.2d 339· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an "on or about" jury instruction is not per se prohibited when a defendant presents an alibi defense for a specific date, and any error in giving such an instruction is subject to harmless error analysis.
• United States v. Grubbs
  776 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, the entrapment defense was a jury question, and the use of a suppressed conversation for impeachment was permissible. The dismissal of a juror was also found to be harmless error.
• United States v. Harland L. Radue
  707 F.2d 493· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the magistrate did not err in refusing to hold evidentiary hearings on the appellant's claims of pre-indictment delay and improper use of IRS summonses, and that the blanket assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege was not justifiable.
• United States v. Ira T. Smith
  692 F.2d 658· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that aggregating the value of stolen goods to meet the $5000 jurisdictional amount is permissible, and the trial court's refusal to give a specific jury instruction regarding addict informant testimony was not prejudicial error in this case.
• United States v. Felsen
  648 F.2d 681· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in its rulings on the other issues raised.
• United States v. Lincoln Parker, Jr.
  549 F.2d 998· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of the appellant's prior statement was a permissible admission, not a comment on his failure to testify, and that other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. McINTOSH
  426 F.2d 1231· D.C. Cir.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecution to select which prior conviction to use for impeachment, this error was harmless and did not affect substantial rights. Narcotics convictions are admissible to impeach credibility.
• United States v. Coleman
  420 F.2d 1313· D.C. Cir.· 1969-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The majority reversed the conviction and remanded for a Luck hearing, but the dissenting judge argued the conviction should be affirmed due to overwhelming evidence of guilt and harmless error.
• Wilcox v. United States
  387 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court committed plain error by permitting the cross-examination of character witnesses regarding the defendant's prior arrests, as this violated the standard set in Michelson v. United States and prejudiced the defendant.
• United States v. Lookretis
  385 F.2d 487· 7th Cir.· 1967-10-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid, rejecting all grounds for appeal.
• United States v. Silvers
  374 F.2d 828· 7th Cir.· 1967-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while admitting evidence of the defendant's prior incarceration and criminal record was error, it was not prejudicial because the defense counsel himself extensively used this evidence to support the insanity defense.
• United States v. Rayborn
  310 F.2d 339· 6th Cir.· 1962-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction should be affirmed because the alleged errors were either not errors, waived by failure to object, or harmless.
• Chapman v. United States
  289 F.2d 539· 5th Cir.· 1961-04-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search and seizure were lawful based on probable cause derived from an informant's tip and subsequent surveillance, and that the jury instructions and sentencing were proper.
• Brown v. United States
  283 F.2d 792· 8th Cir.· 1960-11-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding certain testimony and in its handling of rebuttal evidence, as any potential errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and procedural rules.
• United States v. LEO
  941 F.2d 181· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Leo and Badolato, finding sufficient evidence for Leo's false statement conviction and upholding the district court's evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Ferreira
  821 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the stop and frisk of the defendant was constitutionally permissible, but the admission of evidence of firearms seized from the defendant was an abuse of discretion because the weapons were irrelevant to the unarmed bank robbery charge and unfairly prejudicial
• United States v. Bazan
  807 F.2d 1200· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a private citizen's search, even if motivated by a desire to assist law enforcement, does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the government did not know of, acquiesce in, or initiate the intrusive conduct. Graciela Flores' conviction for two conspiracy counts
• United States v. DeVERSE
  464 F.2d 80· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the admission of certain evidence, while erroneous in one instance, was non-prejudicial.
• United States v. Capocci
  433 F.2d 155· 1st Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find intent beyond a reasonable doubt and that the admission of the $20 bill was not reversible error. The court also found that the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude the defendant knowingly and voluntari
• United States v. Marr
  428 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to poll the jury by not requesting it after the verdict was announced and that a minor variance in the indictment was not grounds for reversal.
• Johnson v. United States
  424 F.2d 537· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper cross-examination question about a prior misdemeanor conviction was harmless error given the strength of the evidence and the judge's curative instruction.
• United States v. Gonzalo Valdes
  417 F.2d 335· 2d Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of prejudicial error at trial and suppression hearing were either non-prejudicial or meritless, and affirmed his conviction.
• Payne v. United States
  392 F.2d 820· D.C. Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in handling the impeachment of defendants with prior convictions or in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense when the defendants agreed not to pursue it.
• United States v. Isidro Farias-Farias
  925 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his prior arrests and the nature of those arrests, as this evidence was admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence of guilt, and any potential error was ha
• United States v. Colombo
  909 F.2d 711· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-23 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Tafollo-Cardenas
  897 F.2d 976· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting a witness's prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence without a limiting instruction, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Evans
  848 F.2d 1352· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of an additional peremptory challenge was harmless error, evidence related to an illegally seized firearm was admissible under inevitable discovery/independent source exceptions, and ammunition purchase counts were not multiplicitous with firearm pu
• United States v. White
  788 F.2d 390· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's petition for rehearing should be denied because no substantial error affecting the outcome of the trial was committed.
• United States v. Lane
  708 F.2d 1394· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(a) was violated by the substitution of judges, the error did not affect substantial rights and thus did not warrant reversal. Other alleged errors regarding impeachment, jury instructions, and prosecutorial misconduc
• United States v. Boettjer
  569 F.2d 1078· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions, while potentially imprecise, did not constitute reversible error because they did not mislead the jury and the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.