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. Long
  323 F.2d 468· 6th Cir.· 1963-10-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that admitting a transcript of a vacated guilty plea into evidence, without also admitting the proceedings vacating the plea, was plain error affecting substantial rights. The court also found that the defendant's confession was admissible as there was no unnecessa
• Foster v. United States
  318 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1963-06-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence challenged for identification issues and relevance, and that the verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
• Prensa Insular de Puerto RICO, Inc. v. People of Puerto RICO
  189 F.2d 1019· 1st Cir.· 1951-06-07 ·cited 14×
  A federal question essential to appellate jurisdiction must be raised and considered by the lower court before a motion for reconsideration, and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to confer jurisdiction.
• United States v. Miller
  895 F.2d 1431· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that evidence of a defendant's prior conviction can be admissible to show a witness's state of mind (e.g., fear) and that the erroneous admission of such evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Frady
  636 F.2d 506· D.C. Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 13×
• United States v. Houle
  490 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that knowledge of the interstate nature of goods is an element of conspiracy, and its omission from jury instructions constituted plain error requiring reversal of the conspiracy conviction, but not the substantive conviction.
• United States v. McGILL
  952 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant waived objections to jury instructions and evidence admission by failing to object contemporaneously and by stipulating to evidence, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not ripe for review on direct appeal.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Smith
  949 F.2d 677· 3d Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by failing to give a specific instruction on the prosecution's burden of proof regarding self-defense.
• United States v. Carland A. Bowser
  941 F.2d 1019· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 12×
  A downward departure from career offender status based on age and timing of prior offenses is not justified when these factors were adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
• United States v. Belkis Rodriguez
  938 F.2d 319· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 12×
  A sentence imposed below a statutory minimum, even without a contemporaneous objection, is subject to plain error review and must be vacated if it affects substantial rights.
• United States v. Whoie
  925 F.2d 1481· D.C. Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district judge did not commit plain error by instructing the jury on entrapment using a bifurcated approach and by submitting the issue of government inducement to the jury, as the evidence was not so unequivocal as to mandate a finding as a matter of law.
• United States v. Gert Albertus Theron
  849 F.2d 477· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's failure to properly advise the defendant of his right to withdraw his guilty plea if the court did not accept the sentencing recommendation constituted a violation of Rule 11(e)(2) that was not harmless error.
• United States v. Ayman Kallash
  785 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant waived objections to the jury charge by failing to preserve them and that the instructions did not constitute plain error. The court also held that restitutionary awards must comply with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3579-80.
• United States v. Boyle
  675 F.2d 430· 1st Cir.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's use of an alias was not overly prejudicial and that the jury instructions regarding the elements of armed bank robbery were not plain error.
• United States v. Cook
  663 F.2d 808· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 12×
  A modified Allen jury instruction given after the jury had deliberated for five and one-half hours was not unduly coercive and did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Clayton
  643 F.2d 1071· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of composite photographs and the jury instruction on reasonable doubt did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Nelson
  570 F.2d 258· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's ex parte communication with the jury, though an error, was harmless because the defendant's counsel waived the defendant's presence and approved the response, and the judge's conduct did not exceed the bounds of impartiality.
• United States v. Taylor
  530 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the supplemental jury instructions given by the trial judge were unduly coercive and constituted plain error, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Harris
  523 F.2d 172· 6th Cir.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the trial court did not err in allowing impeachment of hostile witnesses or in its handling of the prosecutor's argument.
• United States v. Frazier
  385 F.2d 901· 6th Cir.· 1967-11-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge was not required to sua sponte determine the voluntariness of the confession, and the jury was not required to be instructed on it as no objection was made. The court also held that the arrest and detention did not render the confession inadmis
• United States v. Tolbert
  367 F.2d 778· 7th Cir.· 1966-10-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complete failure to instruct the jury on the nature, assumptions, and inferences of the net worth method of proof constitutes plain error requiring reversal, even without objection.
• Wardell Bowie v. United States
  345 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1965-05-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's sua sponte statement to the jury that the defendant was under arrest when he made a statement, even after striking the statement itself, constituted plain error that deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Ramsey v. United States
  332 F.2d 875· 8th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendant caused the forged check to be transported in interstate commerce, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting arguments or cross-examination.
• McKNIGHT v. United States
  309 F.2d 660· D.C. Cir.· 1962-10-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the jury instruction regarding inference from exclusive possession of recently stolen property was inadequate, it did not constitute reversible error under Rule 52(b) given the lack of objection below.
• Hansberry v. United States
  295 F.2d 800· 9th Cir.· 1961-10-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for embezzling public funds, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Davis
  281 F.2d 93· 7th Cir.· 1960-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the search and seizure were lawful as incident to a lawful arrest, and that jury instructions were not plain error.
• United States v. Saleem Hakim
  30 F.4th 1310· 11th Cir.· 2022-04-14 ·cited 10×
  Saleem Hakim was convicted of three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns after he waived his right to counsel and initially represented himself before a magistrate judge gave him materially incorrect information that he faced a maximum of one y
• Werbungs UND Commerz Union Austalt v. Collectors' Guild, Ltd.
  930 F.2d 1021· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the instructional error regarding discovery abuse constituted plain error and could not be cured by remittitur, but disagreed on whether to reach the preclusionary rulings.
• Hunter v. State OF NEW Mexico
  916 F.2d 595· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-18 ·cited 10×
  A constructive amendment of the indictment occurred when the jury instruction allowed conviction for first-degree criminal sexual penetration based on digital penetration prior to the statutory change, which constituted a lesser offense, thus requiring reversal of that conviction
• United States v. Anzalone
  886 F.2d 229· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the retrial was not barred by double jeopardy, the trial court did not err regarding transcript accuracy, presentence reports, or voir dire.
• United States v. Arias
  678 F.2d 1202· 4th Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Mesteth
  528 F.2d 333· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing jury requests, nor did it commit reversible error by communicating with the jury outside the defendant's presence.
• United States v. Taylor
  513 F.2d 70· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's supplemental Allen charge, combined with a time limit for deliberation, did not constitute plain error, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Johnson
  489 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury had sufficient evidence to find the appellant guilty of knowingly possessing a stolen vehicle, and that the prosecutor's incomplete question about a prior arrest did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Burton R. Signer
  482 F.2d 394· 6th Cir.· 1973-07-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that prejudicial remarks by the prosecution, including a cartoon and a fable, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Motto Franicevich
  465 F.2d 467· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to tamper with a vessel, and that the admission of coconspirator guilty pleas was not plain error.
• United States v. Brown
  454 F.2d 397· 9th Cir.· 1972-01-24 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Wells
  431 F.2d 434· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's statement, when viewed in context and considering the defense's attack on a witness's credibility, was not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify and did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Howard
  433 F.2d 505· D.C. Cir.· 1970-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while jury instructions on permissible inference from possession of stolen goods were imperfect, they did not constitute plain error affecting substantial rights for the unauthorized use and interstate transportation counts. However, the evidence was insuffici
• Strauch v. United States (two cases)
  213 F.2d 805· 6th Cir.· 1954-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a jury instruction improperly informing the jury about the defendant's inability to appeal a not guilty verdict and the court's discretion in sentencing constituted plain error affecting substantial rights.
• United States v. Faulhaber
  929 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, that the indictment was not multiplicitous, and that there was no impermissible variance between the charges and the evidence presented.
• United States v. Marcus
  2d Cir.· 2010-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that the Second Circuit's 'plain error' standard, which requires reversal if there is any possibility a jury convicted solely on pre-enactment conduct, is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent requiring prejudice and serious impact on judicial proceedings.
• United States v. Bradshaw
  935 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to determine if the defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent, and remanded for this determination.
• United States v. Harrison
  931 F.2d 65· D.C. Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that severance was properly denied due to lack of specificity regarding co-defendant testimony, and that any Fifth Amendment violation regarding Black's assertion of privilege was not plain error given the strong evidence against him. Butle
• United States v. Arigbodi
  924 F.2d 462· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the sentence, holding that even if the district court erred in calculating the criminal history score by including uncounseled convictions, the alleged errors did not rise to the level of plain error because they did not affect the defendant's substantial right
• United States v. Serpoosh
  919 F.2d 835· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of the severance motion was error because the mutually antagonistic defenses presented by the co-defendants created substantial prejudice, denying them a constitutionally fair trial.
• United States v. McBRIDE
  862 F.2d 1316· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because cumulative trial errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, prejudiced the defendant and affected the fairness of the trial.
• United States v. Schultz
  769 F.2d 431· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting, as the omission was not prejudicial and defense counsel's failure to request it was likely a tactical decision.
• United States v. Casanova
  642 F.2d 300· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting robbery was not subject to reversal due to ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of evidence, or insufficient evidence.
• United States v. VAN Horn
  553 F.2d 1092· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 8×
  The petition for rehearing is denied because counsel had an opportunity to object to jury instructions but failed to do so on substantive grounds.