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. Chapman
  866 F.2d 1326· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's wife's out-of-court statements did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or hearsay rules, and that the assertion of marital privilege did not render the statements inadmissible. The court also found no reversi
• United States v. Lofton
  776 F.2d 918· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury instructions were inadequate because they failed to inform the jury that the government must prove the absence of heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a murder conviction.
• United States v. Wiley F. Green
  757 F.2d 116· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for failure to file income tax returns was proper, affirming the district court's rulings on identification, evidence, and jury instructions.
• United States v. Sawyer
  347 F.2d 372· 4th Cir.· 1965-06-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, which expressed a belief in the defendant's guilt, did not constitute plain error and were permissible as they were based on the evidence presented.
• Landers v. United States
  304 F.2d 577· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator statements and evidence obtained from a warrantless arrest and search, nor in its jury instructions, especially given the lack of timely objections and the presence of plain error.
• Ryan v. United States
  278 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1960-05-13 ·cited 20×
  A bank officer can be convicted under 18 U.S.C.A. § 220 for receiving a fee for procuring a loan even if the fee is received after the loan is made, and an erroneous jury instruction that does not affect substantial rights is not grounds for reversal.
• Felton v. United States
  170 F.2d 153· D.C. Cir.· 1948-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was not subject to reversal due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudicial jury instructions, as the issues were either tactical decisions, not objected to, or cured by other instructions.
• United States v. Klein
  187 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1951-03-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial arguments, or jury instructions, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Litchfield
  959 F.2d 1514· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the four-point enhancement for being an organizer or leader was improper, but the obstruction of justice enhancement and consecutive sentencing were not. The conviction is affirmed, but the case is remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Neumann
  887 F.2d 880· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's comments on evidence constituted plain error and a directed verdict against the defendant.
• United States v. Mann
  884 F.2d 532· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for mail fraud convictions but insufficient for wire fraud. It also reversed convictions for willful failure to file due to an erroneous jury instruction on the good faith defense.
• United States v. Jerril J. Krowen
  809 F.2d 144· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Krowen of mail fraud, and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• United States v. Driver
  798 F.2d 248· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prosecution did not violate Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, the admission of a highlighted summary of telephone records was proper, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Ferrera
  746 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and most of the defendant's challenges to the conviction and restitution order were without merit, except for the $18,000 loan which was not sufficiently proven to be caused by the offense.
• United States v. Marlin Walter Larson, D.O.
  722 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on entrapment and in allowing the jury to use transcripts of taped conversations, as these rulings did not constitute plain error.
• COX v. Wyrick
  642 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-25 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Skinner
  437 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instructions erroneously directed a verdict of guilty and improperly applied the presumption of sanity, constituting plain error.
• Riley v. United States
  411 F.2d 1146· 9th Cir.· 1969-05-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the arrest was lawful, evidence obtained incident to the arrest was admissible, and the trial court did not err in refusing to disclose the informer's identity.
• United States v. Chester
  407 F.2d 53· 3d Cir.· 1969-02-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence did not support a claim of withdrawal from the conspiracy, and therefore, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on withdrawal or in admitting co-conspirator statements. However, the sentences were technically improper due to
• Vasquez v. United States
  290 F.2d 897· 9th Cir.· 1961-05-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' conviction for facilitating the transportation of heroin was supported by evidence, and that any errors in jury instructions were not prejudicial and did not affect substantial rights.
• Barry v. United States
  287 F.2d 340· D.C. Cir.· 1961-01-12 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in reversing the conviction based on an issue not raised below.
• Robertson v. United States
  171 F.2d 345· D.C. Cir.· 1948-12-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the judge's remarks to the jury constituted plain error affecting the appellant's right to a fair trial, despite the lack of timely objection.
• United States v. Brutzman
  731 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for mail fraud was supported by substantial evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Johnson
  722 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the admission of a serial number report from the ATF establishing interstate commerce was not plain error, and any hearsay in the certification was harmless. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Campbell
  937 F.2d 404· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior bad acts was proper to show intent, plan, or absence of mistake, and that any errors in admitting other testimony were harmless or not plain error.
• United States v. Nolan
  910 F.2d 1553· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 16×
  The court agrees with the majority's analysis but suggests further scrutiny of the admission of "bad acts" testimony.
• United States v. Cardinal
  782 F.2d 34· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the complainant's prior sexual assault allegations under the rape-shield rule and that the jury instructions and sentencing were proper.
• United States v. Murphy
  762 F.2d 1151· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment lacked the specificity required to apprise the defendants of the charges against them, thus violating their Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. London
  753 F.2d 202· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury charge was adequate because the indictment and evidence of misrepresentations directed to the nature of the bargain sufficiently established the contemplation of harm required for mail and wire fraud convictions.
• United States v. Lewis
  693 F.2d 189· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence to show a plan or scheme, and the timing of the limiting instruction, did not constitute reversible error because the appellant was not substantially prejudiced.
• United States v. Denton
  556 F.2d 811· 6th Cir.· 1977-06-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that admitting a composite tape of intercepted conversations was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury instructions and evidence were sufficient to support the convictions.
• 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.
• United States v. Madison
  458 F.2d 974· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the mail fraud statute applies to the scheme and that the defendant's failure to raise an issue regarding identification procedures below precludes him from raising it on appeal.
• United States v. Krosky
  418 F.2d 65· 6th Cir.· 1969-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the failure to adequately explain the meaning of 'willfulness' to the jury constituted plain error, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Mixon
  374 F.2d 20· 6th Cir.· 1967-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an indictment for conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 174 is sufficient if it cites the statute, and that the jury charge, when read as a whole, did not commit plain error regarding the imputation of possession.
• 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.
• Comer Blocker v. United States
  320 F.2d 800· D.C. Cir.· 1963-07-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the jury instructions on insanity were not objected to and did not affect substantial rights, certain aspects warrant discussion for proper administration of the insanity defense.
• Jones v. United States
  307 F.2d 190· D.C. Cir.· 1962-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the appellant should have a new trial due to errors in the jury charge.
• Leonard v. United States
  277 F.2d 834· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prosecutor's extensive opening statement detailing numerous uncharged crimes, even with a subsequent jury instruction, created incurable prejudice denying the defendant a fair trial.
• Edwards v. United States
  265 F.2d 909· 6th Cir.· 1959-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for armed bank robbery was valid, affirming the district court's judgment.
• United States v. Holt
  817 F.2d 1264· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-28 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior misconduct was not an abuse of discretion, and that prosecutorial misconduct did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Greenwood
  974 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the government's cross-appeal of sentences and that the district court erred in sentencing based on a lower schedule of controlled substances. The court affirmed convictions but vacated sentences for resentencing.
• United States v. Elgersma
  929 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the burden of proving criminal forfeiture is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather a preponderance of the evidence standard applies.
• United States v. Flitcraft
  803 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the defense of a good-faith misunderstanding of tax law constituted plain error, requiring reversal.
• Gov't OF the Virgin Islands v. Joseph
  765 F.2d 394· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 14×
  A conviction for an offense not charged in the information, even if a lesser included offense under some tests, must be overturned if it requires proof of an element not present in the charged offense, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the charges.
• United States v. Adriano Cristopher Mattoni
  698 F.2d 691· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, the admission of a co-conspirator's guilty plea did not constitute plain error, and post-arrest statements were admissible.
• Gov't OF the Canal Zone v. Fears
  528 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge's remarks and instructions, even if potentially coercive, did not constitute plain error requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Croxton
  482 F.2d 231· 9th Cir.· 1973-06-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a conspiracy agreement and that the defendants were not entrapped.
• United States v. Bigman
  429 F.2d 13· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of statements was not plain error and that the Selective Service Act's registration requirements do not violate due process or the First Amendment.
• United States v. Boyle
  402 F.2d 757· 3d Cir.· 1968-11-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence, and the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and illegal search were without merit.