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. Andrea
  538 F.2d 1255· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that despite potentially improper testimony regarding the defendant's prior incarceration, the conviction should be affirmed under the harmless error rule due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Minyard
  461 F.2d 931· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the failure to provide explicit jury instructions regarding the use of evidence from a dismissed count was harmless error, as the evidence was relevant to the defendant's general intent and the overall facts were closely associated.
• Barney Lee Pettett v. United States
  434 F.2d 105· 6th Cir.· 1970-11-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the presence of eyewitnesses at the defendant's arraignment, without more, was not unnecessarily suggestive and did not violate due process, especially since the issue was not raised on direct appeal and any potential error was harmless.
• United States v. Stevenson
  424 F.2d 923· D.C. Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that jury instructions on flight and missing witnesses were improperly given as to appellant White, potentially influencing the verdict.
• Lesley Howard Calhoun v. United States
  368 F.2d 59· 9th Cir.· 1966-10-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even though co-conspirator statements were admitted without a limiting instruction, the error was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the statements added insignificant weight. The court also held that the defendants' rights were not vi
• United States v. Collins
  349 F.2d 296· 6th Cir.· 1965-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's extra-judicial statements and confession were admissible, and that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence or denying a mistrial.
• United States v. Boyce
  340 F.2d 418· 4th Cir.· 1964-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's confession, which implicated the appellant and was made after the co-conspirator pleaded guilty, constituted prejudicial error.
• United States v. Braxton C. Wallace
  300 F.2d 525· 4th Cir.· 1962-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings or the sufficiency of the evidence.
• Chereton v. United States
  286 F.2d 409· 6th Cir.· 1961-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because the questions and answers set forth therein clearly showed materiality to the bankruptcy inquiry, and the trial judge's questioning of a witness was not prejudicial error.
• Isgate v. United States
  174 F.2d 437· 5th Cir.· 1949-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury charge, when read as a whole, adequately presented the defense, and any alleged deficiencies were either harmless or plain error, not warranting reversal.
• United States v. Copley
  938 F.2d 107· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that any error in admitting a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Lambert
  887 F.2d 1568· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the failure to file a supporting affidavit for a search warrant does not invalidate the warrant if other evidence establishes its existence and contents, and that a defendant must show prejudice to warrant reversal for failure to give a requested jury instruct
• United States v. Manso-Portes
  867 F.2d 422· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of "other acts" evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) was proper, and the district court did not err in its sentencing or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Wade
  841 F.2d 331· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 6×
  A notice of appeal filed after a verdict but before sentencing ripens into an appealable order when the judgment of sentence is entered, and is not a jurisdictional defect.
• United States v. Feldhacker
  820 F.2d 279· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing a coercion instruction and that any error in the jury instruction was harmless.
• United States v. Mechanik
  756 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant subject to retrial after a mistrial due to a hung jury has no colorable double jeopardy claim appealable before final judgment, following Richardson v. United States.
• United States v. Hajal
  555 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt for conspiracy to violate federal drug laws, and that any errors made by the trial court were harmless.
• United States v. Williams
  561 F.2d 859· D.C. Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court denied a sua sponte suggestion for rehearing en banc.
• United States v. Swofford
  529 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence was harmless error and the search incident to a lawful arrest was reasonable. The denial of access to the pre-sentence report was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Caulton
  498 F.2d 412· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for passing counterfeit bills was supported by ample evidence, and his claims regarding involuntary statements, discovery, and identification procedures were without merit.
• Smith v. United States
  456 F.2d 121· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions and the court's comments on appellate review did not constitute reversible error, and the failure to object to the jury array did not deprive the petitioner of effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Jones
  415 F.2d 753· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to order a mental examination sua sponte, nor did the prosecutor's closing remarks constitute reversible error.
• Welch v. United States
  411 F.2d 66· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding evidence obtained from an illegal warrantless search, and the trial judge's highlighting of that evidence in jury instructions, constituted reversible error.
• Clarke v. Henderson
  403 F.2d 687· 6th Cir.· 1968-11-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a full evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the constitutionality of the warrantless seizure of clothing, as the prior record was inadequate and the case predated relevant Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. Ramseur
  378 F.2d 902· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if the search and seizure of the jacket were illegal, the admission of the jacket into evidence constituted harmless error because it did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
• United States v. Gulley
  374 F.2d 55· 6th Cir.· 1967-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting certain exhibits or in its jury instructions, and that a defendant's denial of possession does not negate the statutory presumption of guilt.
• United States v. Watkins
  369 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1966-11-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the warrantless arrests and searches were lawful because they were based on probable cause, and the admission of hearsay testimony was harmless error.
• Lucas v. United States
  188 F.2d 627· D.C. Cir.· 1951-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a clerical error in the indictment regarding the date of the offense, which did not prejudice the defendant, did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.
• Loper v. United States
  160 F.2d 293· 10th Cir.· 1947-01-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof is immaterial if it does not cause substantial prejudice to the defendant and that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Laykin
  886 F.2d 1534· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the equity skimming statute does not require the defendant to know that the properties are insured by the FHA or VA, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for equity skimming and conspiracy.
• United States v. Hefner
  842 F.2d 731· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 4×
  An ineligible grand jury foreman does not require dismissal of an indictment if the error is harmless, and a de facto officer's administration of an oath is valid.
• United States v. Cunningham
  804 F.2d 58· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while admitting a co-conspirator's guilty plea was error, it was harmless, and the prosecutor's improper reference to excluded evidence in closing argument, without a timely objection, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Jenkins
  728 F.2d 396· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting its review of the search warrant's validity solely to the contents of the affidavit, and a remand for further testimony was proper.
• United States v. Brinda DeFILIPPIS
  637 F.2d 1370· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's scheme of passing altered bills, even without representing them as genuine, violated 18 U.S.C. § 472, and that any error in jury instructions regarding 'uttering' was harmless.
• United States v. Rubier
  651 F.2d 628· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the supplemental petition for rehearing, finding no basis for the defendant's claim of prosecutorial vouching.
• United States v. Riley Ray Fultz
  602 F.2d 830· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and any errors in testimony or law enforcement conduct did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Petsas
  592 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment, denying a continuance, and permitting the impeachment of a government witness.
• United States v. Shield
  515 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-05 ·cited 4×
  A variance between the indictment and the proof regarding the victim's identity is not grounds for reversal if it does not affect the defendant's substantial rights, such as preventing a proper defense, causing unfair surprise, or exposing to double jeopardy.
• Kiger v. United States
  417 F.2d 1194· 7th Cir.· 1969-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if a petition in forma pauperis could be construed as a notice of appeal, a new trial was not warranted given the petitioner's failure to present new evidence or issues and the prior adjudication of claims.
• United States v. Williams
  401 F.2d 901· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in admitting certain testimony, as any errors were either favorable to the defendant, not objected to, or did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Rohalla
  369 F.2d 220· 7th Cir.· 1966-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of testimony based on a state-published book, even without the book's production, was not reversible error.
• Veney v. United States
  344 F.2d 542· D.C. Cir.· 1965-02-04 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Richie
  222 F.2d 436· 3d Cir.· 1955-05-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant waived the objection of duplicity by failing to raise it before trial and was not prejudiced by the indictment's language or the proof presented.
• United States v. Betty J. Johnson (86-1993)
  831 F.2d 124· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a non-practitioner selling bogus prescriptions for controlled substances can be convicted of unlawful distribution, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy convictions of all defendants.
• United States v. Bruce
  984 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that any error in cross-examining the defendant's son about his academic past was harmless, and the jury instructions and sentencing enhancements were proper.
• United States v. Xiomaro E. Hernandez
  975 F.2d 1035· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting extraneous evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because its probative value was slight and substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Holden
  963 F.2d 1114· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court should have granted the defendant's request for early access to the jury list, the subsequent voir dire rendered this denial harmless error. The court also held that tax instruction booklets are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction A
• United States v. Toushin
  899 F.2d 617· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury that money skimmed from a wholly owned business is not taxable until it is spent for personal use, as taxability hinges on control, not just expenditure.
• Christian v. Housewright
  721 F.2d 240· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to provide a limiting instruction regarding prior convictions, this error was harmless. Additionally, the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel or actual conflict of interest arising from joint representation.
• United States v. Cerrito
  612 F.2d 588· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial did not materially vary from the indictment, the jury instructions were proper and did not amend the indictment, and the government's pre-indictment delay did not violate the defendant's due process rights.