Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(B)

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

• Adams v. United States
  375 F.2d 635· 10th Cir.· 1967-03-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an indictment need only contain the elements of the offense, and that a co-defendant's prior conviction testimony does not affect the substantial rights of another defendant. The court also found that an erroneous sentence does not invalidate the authorized po
• Hoover v. United States
  358 F.2d 87· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the jury instructions regarding willfulness and materiality were adequate, and no prejudice resulted from submitting the issue of materiality to the jury.
• Franklin Bros. v. United States
  328 F.2d 151· 9th Cir.· 1964-02-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the statutory presumption under 21 U.S.C. § 174 applies to both the fact of unlawful importation and the defendant's knowledge thereof, and that the evidence of constructive possession was sufficient to warrant its application.
• Gariepy v. United States
  220 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1955-03-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for wilful income tax evasion, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in denying the challenge to the jury panel.
• United States v. Balzano
  916 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the joinder of offenses was proper and severance was not required, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Hiland
  909 F.2d 1114· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and FDCA violations, but vacated a portion of Carter-Glogau's sentence regarding prosecution costs.
• United States v. Haynes
  573 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a trial judge's comment during cross-examination, which could be construed as referring to the defendant's failure to testify, was not reversible error given the context, corrective instructions, and harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held
• United States v. Kopel
  552 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 36×
  It was impermissible to show the jury that Kopel consulted his attorney before answering incriminating questions, as this violates due process principles established in Doyle v. Ohio.
• United States v. Borelli
  435 F.2d 500· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to sever the defendant's trial, in allowing the prosecutor's summation remarks, or in denying an evidentiary hearing on potential jury prejudice.
• Tanner v. United States
  401 F.2d 281· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Garafolo
  385 F.2d 200· 7th Cir.· 1967-10-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting a tendered impeachment instruction regarding a government witness's credibility based on his status as an informer and prior felony conviction.
• United States v. Moran
  236 F.2d 361· 2d Cir.· 1956-08-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant was properly convicted and sentenced under 26 U.S.C. § 145(b) for tax evasion, despite the existence of an overlapping misdemeanor statute.
• United States v. Perplies
  165 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1948-01-27 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for selling beer over the ceiling price was supported by sufficient evidence, and the jury instructions, while not perfect, substantially complied with the law given the nature of the offense.
• United States v. Roenigk
  810 F.2d 809· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by admitting prejudicial evidence and argument concerning prior cocaine transactions, which tended to cause the jury to decide the case on an improper basis.
• The United States v. Barton
  731 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments on the defendant's silence at the time of arrest and his failure to testify at trial constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Groce
  682 F.2d 1359· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the trial judge improperly refused to ask prospective jurors about racial prejudice, this error was not reversible because there was no reasonable possibility that racial prejudice influenced the jury. The court also found the admission of a nautical cha
• United States v. Fernandez
  496 F.2d 1294· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the synergistic effect of failing to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence and the prosecutor's prejudicial comments regarding prior convictions constituted plain error requiring reversal.
• United States v. De Marco
  488 F.2d 828· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the warrantless search was valid due to voluntary consent, the conspiracy convictions must be reversed due to a flawed jury instruction regarding knowledge of the interstate nature of the stolen goods.
• United States v. Morales
  477 F.2d 1309· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial confession that inculpates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even with a limiting instruction, and can constitute plain error if not objected to at trial. The court als
• United States v. Fuentes
  432 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by substantial evidence and that their procedural arguments, including challenges to the indictment and evidentiary rulings, were waived by failure to object or lacked merit.
• Solomon v. United States
  408 F.2d 1306· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that even if identification testimony was improperly admitted, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Bartley v. United States
  319 F.2d 717· D.C. Cir.· 1963-05-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a witness's prior inconsistent statement could only be used to assess credibility, not as substantive evidence.
• Gilbert v. United States
  307 F.2d 322· 9th Cir.· 1962-08-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their procedural objections regarding unlawful arrest, search, and jury instructions lacked merit.
• United States v. Reese
  568 F.2d 1246· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the admission of rebuttal testimony regarding prior bad acts was proper to show intent and knowledge, and that the jury instructions, while containing a minor error, did not constitute plain error. The admission of hospital records was also proper. Finally, th
• United States v. Bibbs
  564 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for involuntary servitude were supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not commit plain error in admitting rebuttal testimony or excluding evidence of remote criminal convictions.
• United States v. Carlton Raymond Owens
  460 F.2d 268· 10th Cir.· 1972-04-07 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the failure to sua sponte give a cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony, when such testimony was the sole direct evidence implicating the defendant, constituted plain and reversible error.
• United States v. Carter
  433 F.2d 874· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that while the alibi instruction was not perfect, it did not improperly shift the burden of proof when considered with other instructions. The court also found insufficient evidence for certain counts.
• United States v. Robles-Pantoja
  887 F.2d 1250· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-26 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and distribution, no plain error in prosecutorial remarks or agent presence, and that the 'no parole' provision applied to the defendant's offense.
• United States v. Calabrese
  825 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the application of increased penalties under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 was not an ex post facto violation, and that various searches and seizures were lawful.
• United States v. Beachner Constr. Co., Inc.
  729 F.2d 1278· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the indictment on double jeopardy grounds because the second indictment charged the same continuing conspiracy for which the defendant had already been acquitted, and the mail fraud charges were integral to that con
• United States v. Feroni
  655 F.2d 707· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) does not encompass takings by false pretenses, only common law larceny. It also held that a defendant cannot claim reversible error from the failure to give a cautionary instruction if they declined the trial court's offer to provide one.
• United States v. Swainson
  548 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator tapes was proper, even with an acquittal on the conspiracy charge, because independent evidence established a prima facie case of conspiracy, and that the perjury convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Williams
  545 F.2d 47· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the exclusion of Arkansas statutes and regulations was not an abuse of discretion, and the district court did not commit plain error by not granting a mistrial based on alleged jury communication.
• United States v. Small
  472 F.2d 818· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury that an overt act is a necessary element of conspiracy constitutes plain error requiring reversal.
• Lanier Allison Ramer v. United States
  390 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-06 ·cited 32×
• Romey J. Inge v. United States
  356 F.2d 345· D.C. Cir.· 1966-01-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions on self-defense and the improper use of an inadmissible prior statement for impeachment constituted plain error requiring a new trial.
• Gicinto v. United States
  212 F.2d 8· 8th Cir.· 1954-04-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions regarding a mistrial due to a newspaper article, the admission of a passport, and errors in jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Dalmiro Eduardo Campuzano and John Jario Rios
  905 F.2d 677· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the quantity of narcotics is not an element of the crime of conspiracy to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 846, but rather relates to sentencing enhancement under § 841(b). The court also affirmed the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Ira Blackwood
  768 F.2d 131· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for racketeering and extortion under the Hobbs Act, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in its handling of the government's closing argument.
• United States v. Derrell Darnell Hamilton
  684 F.2d 380· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by failing to give a requested alibi instruction for Counts One and Two, but found no error in the admission of identification evidence or prior act evidence.
• United States v. McCAIN
  677 F.2d 657· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a search warrant's technical deficiency in street address did not require suppression of evidence, as the premises were described with sufficient particularity to enable identification and avoid mistaken searches. The court also found the warrant untainted by
• United States v. Cleo Burgard
  551 F.2d 190· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search warrant was valid, the seized evidence was admissible, and the defendant's statements were properly admitted.
• United States v. Bailey
  537 F.2d 845· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the statute must be enforced as written, even if its interpretation renders it unreasonable or incoherent.
• United States v. Cady
  495 F.2d 742· 8th Cir.· 1974-04-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the jury instructions were not plain error, and the refusal to give a lesser included offense instruction was proper.
• Doyle v. United States
  366 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because his right to appeal was frustrated by his counsel's erroneous advice and the trial court's improper jury instruction on insanity constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Meyer Sigal
  341 F.2d 837· 3d Cir.· 1965-02-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the failure to record the voir dire examination was harmless error and that the defendants effectively waived their right to have it recorded.
• Starks v. United States
  316 F.2d 45· 9th Cir.· 1963-04-11 ·cited 30×
  Conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm is affirmed, as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to charges of possession of an unregistered weapon, and the statute's burden-shifting provision was not invoked or objected to.
• Simmons v. United States
  206 F.2d 427· D.C. Cir.· 1953-03-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting police officers' testimony regarding their experience in investigating numbers games, and instructing the jury that probable cause for arrest was a question of fact for them to decide, constituted plain error affecting substantial rights.
• United States v. Evans
  888 F.2d 891· D.C. Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no plain error in jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Solomon
  825 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that jury instructions adequately covered specific intent and willfulness, and that the admission of personal tax returns was proper. However, an increased sentence upon retrial was presumptively vindictive due to lack of objective justification in the record.