Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(B)

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

• United States v. Indiviglio
  352 F.2d 276· 2d Cir.· 1965-10-28 ·cited 345×
  The court held that the defendant's failure to properly object to the admission of his post-indictment statement at trial, specifically on the grounds of Massiah or Escobedo, foreclosed appellate review of that alleged error.
• United States v. Bell
  573 F.2d 1040· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 282×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire questions, admission of coconspirator statements, or jury instructions, and any errors in admitting testimony about the gun's purpose were harmless.
• Tatum v. United States
  190 F.2d 612· D.C. Cir.· 1951-05-05 ·cited 225×
  The court held that the trial court's instruction to the jury that the defendant was guilty, even after his counsel admitted guilt, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Seale
  461 F.2d 345· 7th Cir.· 1972-05-11 ·cited 135×
  The court held that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial for contempt charges if the aggregate sentence for multiple contemptuous acts exceeds six months, and that the trial judge should have inquired into the defendant's objections to his appointed counsel.
• Verdugo v. United States
  402 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-16 ·cited 132×
  The dissenting judge held that illegally seized evidence, though inadmissible for determining guilt, may be considered by the sentencing judge. The judge also stated there was no error in not providing the defendant with a copy of the presentence report.
• United States v. Griffin
  818 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 124×
  The court held that most of the defendant's claims were procedurally defaulted and not reviewable as plain error, and the remaining evidentiary rulings were either properly admitted or not preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Jacquillon
  469 F.2d 380· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-01 ·cited 123×
  The court held that probable cause existed for the arrest, the evidence seized was admissible, and the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of intimidation under the statute.
• United States v. Wilson
  657 F.2d 755· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 120×
  The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to convict appellants on the conspiracy charge, it was insufficient for the possession and distribution charges against Wilson, and the possession charge against Hendrix. Joinder and severance issues were found to be without m
• United States v. Cleophas James Kearney
  560 F.2d 1358· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-22 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy and distribution of controlled substances were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding joinder, deposition testimony admissibility, jury instructions, sentencing, and effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Pope
  561 F.2d 663· 6th Cir.· 1977-09-02 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the essential element of 'intent to distribute' under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) constituted plain error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Gaston Gerald
  624 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 102×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the voir dire, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, or indictment.
• Walker v. United States
  342 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1965-02-25 ·cited 102×
  The court's opinion, except for the Allen charge variation, is concurred with.
• United States v. Massiah
  307 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-27 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on all elements of conspiracy, specifically knowledge of illegal importation, constituted plain error requiring reversal of the conspiracy convictions. It also held that admissions obtained from a defendant after
• United States v. Burton A. Librach
  536 F.2d 1228· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the government's informal grant of immunity to an accomplice witness was permissible, and payments made to the witness for protective custody were authorized by statute, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Green
  548 F.2d 1261· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the admission of extensive, irrelevant, and prejudicial expert testimony regarding the properties, street value, and potential for abuse of DMT, as well as the economic incentives for its manufacture, constituted a violation of the defendants' due process righ
• McMILLEN v. United States
  386 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the "plain error" standard applied due to the jury instructions on witness presumption and the lack of cautionary instructions for accomplice testimony, warranting reversal for one appellant but not the other due to differing levels of corroborating evidence.
• United States v. Frank
  864 F.2d 992· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-07 ·cited 94×
  The denial of the motion to suppress evidence found in a locked bag during an inventory search was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Elkins
  885 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 92×
  The court affirmed the conspiracy conviction, finding the indictment adequately charged conspiracy to defraud the United States and the jury was properly instructed. The court also affirmed the conviction related to export violations, finding the Allen charge was not coercive and
• United States v. Blackwell
  694 F.2d 1325· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish plain error on appeal due to an incomplete record and the novelty of the constitutional issue raised.
• United States v. Southard
  700 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Franks hearing, admitting evidence of gambling activities, or finding the evidence sufficient for conviction, and that the ex parte, in camera interview was harmless error.
• United States v. Magnano
  543 F.2d 431· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-07 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction, prior similar crimes evidence was admissible, jury instructions on reasonable doubt were adequate, admission of cash was proper, and the denial of a new trial based on late disclosure was not an abuse of d
• United States v. Noble C. Beasley
  519 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 90×
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy and tax evasion but reversed the sentence for filing a fraudulent tax return, finding no plain error in the jury instructions or the denial of severance.
• Carvell McMILLIAN v. United States
  363 F.2d 165· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-19 ·cited 86×
  The admission of hearsay evidence regarding a confidential informant's tip about the car used in the crime, and the prosecutor's closing argument implying knowledge of other evidence, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Stirling
  571 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the defendant's grand jury testimony into evidence.
• United States v. Sawyer
  799 F.2d 1494· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 81×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt for mail and wire fraud, commodity fraud, interstate transportation of securities taken by fraud, and conspiracy.
• United States v. Garcia
  785 F.2d 214· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 80×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, cross-examination, admission of co-defendant testimony, suppression of evidence, or sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy charge.
• Tillery v. United States
  411 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury to view accomplice testimony with caution, especially when it was the sole evidence against the defendant and the accomplice had provided contradictory statements.
• United States v. Helmel
  769 F.2d 1306· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the admission of the ledger was proper for Stowe, Helmel, and Glick under the coconspirator rule, but reversed Paulsen's conviction due to insufficient independent evidence to support the admission of the ledger against him. The court also found that Stowe and
• Lowell Lyons v. United States
  325 F.2d 370· 9th Cir.· 1963-11-20 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain or reversible error in its jury instructions or in denying motions for disqualification and transfer, and that the appellant received adequate representation.
• Gendron v. United States
  295 F.2d 897· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-08 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to appeal on jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence by failing to properly object or renew motions below, and that the indictment was not fatally defective. The court also found no plain error regarding the search and seiz
• United States v. Gordon
  253 F.2d 177· 7th Cir.· 1958-02-19 ·cited 72×
• United States v. Amos P. Brown, Sr.
  548 F.2d 1194· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of IRS agent testimony, based on out-of-court statements from taxpayers and testifying from memory, constituted inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial "other crimes" evidence, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Vito Sblendorio
  830 F.2d 1382· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 69×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient and that the district court did not commit plain error by deviating from the Silvern jury instruction, nor did prosecutorial comments on uncalled witnesses warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Nikrasch
  367 F.2d 740· 7th Cir.· 1966-10-05 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the car, conducted hours after the arrest and too remote in time and place to be incidental to it, violated the Fourth Amendment, rendering the evidence obtained and subsequent confessions inadmissible.
• United States v. Spiegel
  604 F.2d 961· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-18 ·cited 66×
  The court held that counsel's waiver of the right to a twelve-person jury, made after open discussion and as a matter of trial strategy, binds the defendant, and that the trial court did not err in replacing jurors or in its jury instructions under pre-Chiantese law.
• Sydney Ginsberg v. United States
  257 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-30 ·cited 66×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in reversing the conviction based on issues not properly preserved by objection at trial.
• United States v. Wilson
  690 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-26 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and meaningful access to the court, warranting reversal.
• United States v. Lochan
  674 F.2d 960· 1st Cir.· 1982-04-01 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, the evidence was sufficient to prove knowing possession, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions.
• United States v. James
  609 F.2d 36· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 64×
  The court held that while some evidentiary rulings were erroneous, they did not cumulatively or individually require reversal of the convictions. The court affirmed the judgments of conviction.
• Benson v. United States
  402 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-21 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior statement, containing prejudicial information beyond impeachment purposes, constituted plain error requiring a new trial. The court also held that the defendant waived any claim regarding pre-arrest delay by failing to raise
• United States v. Raub
  177 F.2d 312· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-19 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the jury instructions, by repeatedly emphasizing undisputed facts and the issue of intent, effectively directed a verdict on the fraud element, denying the defendant his right to a jury determination.
• United States v. German Hernandez-Miranda
  601 F.2d 1104· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court did not err in giving a flight instruction, admitting evidence of bond forfeiture, admitting evidence of a prior conviction, or imposing consecutive sentences.
• United States v. Lopez
  575 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-23 ·cited 63×
  The dissenting judge argues that prosecutorial comment on the defendant's silence was not harmless error and, combined with other trial errors, denied the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Miranda
  593 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a prosecutor's reference in closing argument to a co-conspirator's conviction on less evidence than that presented against the defendant deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Mikus v. United States
  433 F.2d 719· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury selection, the admission of film evidence, the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, prejudicial questioning, or the testimony of an INS investigator, and that sufficient evidence supported
• Howard v. United States
  389 F.2d 287· D.C. Cir.· 1967-12-06 ·cited 62×
  The submission of a first-degree murder charge to the jury, even if unsupported by evidence, was harmless error when the jury returned a verdict of second-degree murder, and the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Kehm
  799 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-26 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of a videotape was proper, the prosecution's decisions were not selective, withheld impeachment evidence was not material, a deposition was admissible due to witness unavailability, and jury instructions were adequate
• United States v. DeFILLIPO
  590 F.2d 1228· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 60×
  Defendants cannot complain about joint representation after being warned and electing to proceed.
• United States v. Freeman
  514 F.2d 171· 8th Cir.· 1975-04-14 ·cited 60×
  The court held that a jury selection plan using only voter lists is permissible even if it results in underrepresentation of a group that votes at a lower rate, absent evidence of deliberate discrimination or obstacles to voting. It also held that unobjected-to trial errors, incl
• United States v. Pennix
  313 F.2d 524· 4th Cir.· 1963-01-15 ·cited 60×
  The court held that cross-examination of a defendant regarding prior arrests, rather than convictions, is improper and prejudicial, requiring a new trial.