Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(B)

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

• Franano v. United States
  310 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1962-12-03 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments on the evidence, when viewed in the context of the entire charge and the strength of the evidence, did not constitute prejudicial error and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Aitken
  755 F.2d 188· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the "wilfulness" element in criminal tax prosecutions requires proof of subjective intent to disobey the law, not merely the absence of an objectively reasonable ground for failure to comply.
• Bryson v. United States
  238 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1956-11-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of affiliation with the Communist Party, and that the trial court properly admitted evidence and instructed the jury.
• United States v. Vasen
  222 F.2d 3· 7th Cir.· 1955-04-15 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a defendant cannot raise issues on appeal that were not objected to at trial, unless they constitute plain error affecting substantial rights.
• United States v. Dario Dicesare
  765 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the use of a trained canine to sniff the interior of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Resnick
  745 F.2d 1179· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for unlawful distribution of cocaine and conspiracy, and that hearsay statements by a coconspirator were properly admitted.
• United States v. Vida
  370 F.2d 759· 6th Cir.· 1966-12-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying a severance, in failing to give a specific cautionary instruction regarding co-conspirator admissions after the conspiracy count was acquitted, or in denying a new trial, as the evidence supported the convictions on the s
• United States v. Gomez
  593 F.2d 210· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a separate conviction for possession with intent to distribute is impermissible when the possession is an essential element of the distribution offense charged and proven.
• Bendelow v. United States
  418 F.2d 42· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial judge either failed to recognize or reversibly exceeded the bounds of his discretion in allowing impeachment of the defendant by prior convictions for the same offense.
• United States v. Parnell Bowling
  351 F.2d 236· 6th Cir.· 1965-09-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that erroneous representations in an affidavit, if not raised as a claim of fraud to the trial court, do not warrant reversal on appeal, especially when the affidavit otherwise establishes probable cause.
• United States v. Segna
  555 F.2d 226· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the prosecutor's conduct in calling the decedent's widow as a witness was improper and prejudiced the jury.
• United States v. Crow
  523 F.2d 955· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that applying 18 U.S.C. § 1153 to subject an Indian to a greater sentence than a non-Indian for the same offense violates the Fifth Amendment. The court also held that jury instructions for fourth-degree burglary did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Hines
  470 F.2d 225· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 52×
  References to pre-trial photographic identifications used to bolster in-court identifications are admissible, even if they might suggest a prior criminal record, as their probative value outweighs the speculative prejudice. Ineffective assistance of counsel was not demonstrated.
• United States v. Walton
  411 F.2d 283· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 52×
  The court, reconsidering its prior decision, should grant rehearing and reverse the conviction due to the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding entrapment conversations.
• United States v. Chilcote
  724 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 51×
  The court affirmed all of appellant's convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the sufficiency of the indictment.
• United States v. Carroll
  582 F.2d 942· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that a trial court's jury instruction that improperly broadened the scope of a conspiracy charge constitutes plain error requiring reversal, even without a timely objection. The court also held that denial of a continuance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Perholtz
  842 F.2d 343· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-08 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment properly charged an association-in-fact enterprise under RICO and that the evidence was sufficient to establish a single racketeering enterprise.
• United States v. Veytia-Bravo
  603 F.2d 1187· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that firearms dealer records, required by ATF regulations and kept in the regular course of business, are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Prosecutorial comments about a defendant's father's arrest, if relevant and not objected t
• Gatewood v. United States
  209 F.2d 789· D.C. Cir.· 1953-12-23 ·cited 50×
• United States v. Daily
  921 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the refusal of a requested jury instruction on character evidence, despite the defendants' acquittal on most charges and conviction on conspiracy, constituted plain error affecting substantial rights to a fair trial.
• United States v. Harry Christian (84-5843)
  786 F.2d 203· 6th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on undisclosed evidence, nor in limiting cross-examination, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Mitchell v. United States
  208 F.2d 854· 8th Cir.· 1954-01-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions of error were without merit and affirmed the conviction, finding no miscarriage of justice.
• United States v. Rosa
  705 F.2d 1375· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a death threat, in its jury instructions on aiding and abetting, or in refusing a special cautionary instruction for a witness with a mental condition.
• United States v. Jackson
  824 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 46×
  The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is a sentence enhancement provision, not a separate offense, and thus prior convictions need not be alleged in the indictment to apply its enhanced penalties. Furthermore, the defendant waived his sufficiency of evidence claim by failing to mo
• United States v. Castro
  776 F.2d 1118· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the variance between the indictment and the evidence did not violate the Fifth Amendment's grand jury clause, the evidence was sufficient to convict Garcia-Remedio and Suarez, and the trial court's jury instructions adequately presented Castro's entrapment def
• 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.
• United States v. Rich
  580 F.2d 929· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that his various procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Millard Bowie
  892 F.2d 1494· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by presenting his own evidence after the government rested, and that any error in bolstering witness credibility was harmless. However, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on
• United States v. Olin Austin
  786 F.2d 986· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Austin's conspiracy conviction, and that the government's improper reference to prior convictions of coconspirators constituted reversible error requiring a new trial for Bates and Paterson.
• Chandler v. United States
  378 F.2d 906· 9th Cir.· 1967-06-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that evidence of the stolen dump truck was relevant to prove intent to escape, and that the trial court did not err in admitting exhibits despite potential authentication issues, as objections were not raised at trial or did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Dena Anne Requarth
  847 F.2d 1249· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve her objection to the jury instructions, and the omission of her proposed 'presence' instruction did not constitute plain error because the essential elements were covered by other instructions.
• United States v. Brown
  739 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of co-conspirator statements, jury instructions, or claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper venue.
• 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.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  498 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 42×
  The convictions for drug offenses and firearm charges are affirmed, but the sentences for Rodriguez and Vega are vacated due to plain error in the sentencing proceedings.
• United States v. DOW
  457 F.2d 246· 7th Cir.· 1972-02-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination tactics, which improperly delved into the details of the defendant's prior convictions and suggested racial animosity, constituted plain error and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Darden v. United States
  405 F.2d 1054· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-06 ·cited 42×
• Dupoint v. United States
  388 F.2d 39· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a Rule 18 transfer for the sole convenience of the prosecution, without regard for the defendant's convenience, constitutes plain error affecting substantial rights.
• Contee v. United States
  215 F.2d 324· D.C. Cir.· 1954-07-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a prior judicial determination of mental incompetence requires a subsequent judicial determination of competency before trial, even if counsel and the prosecution accept medical certification of recovery.
• Rogers v. United States
  304 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for severance or mistrial when a co-defendant's guilty plea was announced after jury selection but before the defendant's trial.
• United States v. Previte
  648 F.2d 73· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Wharton's Rule does not apply to conspiracy charges involving gratuity offenses, and that jury instructions, despite minor flaws, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Delmar Earl Chrisco
  493 F.2d 232· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 40×
  The court held that defendants were sufficiently present during jury impaneling and that improper prosecutorial remarks were not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Martin
  475 F.2d 943· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while a jury instruction on the burden of proof for intoxication was erroneous, it did not affect substantial rights and was harmless error when considered with the entire charge and evidence.
• United States v. Arnold
  425 F.2d 204· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's silence after receiving Miranda warnings constituted plain error, requiring reversal.
• Moore v. United States
  375 F.2d 877· 8th Cir.· 1967-04-19 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court's reservation of ruling on the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal did not constitute prejudicial error, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• Anderson v. United States
  369 F.2d 11· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the indictment, evidence exclusion, or comments on evidence.
• 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.
• Braswell v. United States
  200 F.2d 597· 5th Cir.· 1952-12-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that prejudicial courtroom occurrences and comments by the judge and prosecutor denied the defendants a fair and impartial trial.
• United States v. Bennie Mitchell
  783 F.2d 971· 10th Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the issue of an illegal search of the appellant's person was not preserved for appeal because it was not raised in the trial court, and the record was insufficient to establish plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Bagby
  451 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1971-11-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding the elements of conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 174, particularly concerning illegal importation and knowledge thereof, and the imputation of possession among conspirators, constituted plain error requiring reversal.
• Austin v. United States
  414 F.2d 1155· D.C. Cir.· 1969-05-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the flight instruction was erroneous, it was not plain error and thus harmless. The indictment was not deficient for failing to explicitly state specific intent.