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. Wilbur
  545 F.2d 764· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless seizure of records during a compliance check was permissible under statutory authority and that the evidence supported the jury's finding of predisposition against an entrapment defense.
• United States v. Cook
  505 F.2d 659· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury had sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of willful tax evasion and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct and instructional errors did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Brown
  508 F.2d 427· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 8×
  The majority erred by reversing conviction based on plain error regarding concealment, as the issue was not preserved and the record supported the lower courts' findings.
• United States v. Munz
  504 F.2d 1203· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's instructions and comments regarding the defendant's mental competency, by focusing on "delusions" rather than the "substantial capacity" standard, prejudiced the defendant and constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Palmer
  467 F.2d 371· D.C. Cir.· 1972-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Government's failure to introduce certain physical evidence and the jury instructions on constructive possession did not constitute prejudicial error, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Bradley
  447 F.2d 657· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant as an aider and abettor and that any error in jury instructions regarding constructive possession was harmless.
• Barney Lee Pettett v. United States
  434 F.2d 105· 6th Cir.· 1970-11-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the presence of eyewitnesses at the defendant's arraignment, without more, was not unnecessarily suggestive and did not violate due process, especially since the issue was not raised on direct appeal and any potential error was harmless.
• United States v. Goff
  430 F.2d 396· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish illegal intent and that any errors in the indictment or cross-examination were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Richards
  425 F.2d 432· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury charge, when considered as a whole and with supplemental instructions, correctly allowed the jury to consider post-arrival actions as evidence of intent formed during interstate transportation.
• Caldwell v. United States
  405 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the failure to give an accomplice testimony instruction sua sponte did not constitute plain error.
• Stanfield v. United States
  350 F.2d 518· 10th Cir.· 1965-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding the illegal obtaining of handwriting specimens and lack of counsel advice were not preserved for appeal and lacked merit.
• Smith v. United States
  340 F.2d 797· D.C. Cir.· 1964-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of extra-judicial identification evidence was not plain error, as it was admitted without objection and did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Williams
  271 F.2d 434· 7th Cir.· 1959-09-29 ·cited 8×
  A general sentence on a conviction under an indictment in several counts will be upheld if the penalty imposed does not exceed that prescribed for any one count, if that count be good and warrants the judgment, and the evidence sustains the conviction thereon.
• Castle v. United States
  238 F.2d 131· 8th Cir.· 1956-11-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy and overt acts, and that the appellant's challenges regarding the grand jury foreman and inadmissible evidence were without merit.
• United States v. Asendio
  171 F.2d 122· 3d Cir.· 1948-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that whether the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his hotel room is a question of fact that the trial court must determine.
• United States v. Renee ICE Cream Co.
  160 F.2d 353· 3d Cir.· 1947-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove overutilization of milk solids in the specific months charged, thus the convictions could not stand.
• United States v. Wilson
  966 F.2d 243· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of the gun did not constitute plain error and affirmed the conviction, but remanded for resentencing due to a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Berkery
  889 F.2d 1281· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to admit all elements of a crime to receive an entrapment defense jury instruction, when later Supreme Court precedent allowed inconsistent defenses, constituted plain error requiring a new trial on all counts.
• United States v. Neumann
  867 F.2d 1102· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Manso-Portes
  867 F.2d 422· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of "other acts" evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) was proper, and the district court did not err in its sentencing or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Eder
  836 F.2d 1145· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction and proper venue, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial.
• United States v. Freeman
  598 F.2d 306· D.C. Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Adelbert Lone Bear and Merceline Cynthia Red Boy
  579 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government does not need to prove the victim was not the defendant's wife in a federal rape prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2031, unless the defendant raises such a defense.
• United States v. Sanchez
  532 F.2d 155· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to sever Ruiz's trial or provide a limiting instruction after Sanchez admitted to conspiracy prejudiced Ruiz's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• United States v. Cacioppo
  517 F.2d 22· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated the essential facts constituting the offense, including intent, and that the jury instructions did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Weldon Joel Lewis
  484 F.2d 734· 7th Cir.· 1973-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's father's letter did not establish a prima facie case for a III-A deferment due to extreme hardship, and the board did not de facto reopen the classification by considering a post-induction conscientious objector claim.
• United States v. James
  466 F.2d 475· D.C. Cir.· 1972-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, the informant's identity was not required to be disclosed, the evidence was lawfully seized, and the trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial.
• United States v. Williams
  421 F.2d 1166· D.C. Cir.· 1970-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by refusing to instruct the jury that they could infer adverse government evidence from the absence of pre-arrest identification testimony.
• United States v. Osborn
  415 F.2d 1021· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove the government knowingly used perjured testimony and that his conviction was based on his own recorded statements, not uncorroborated testimony.
• Logan v. United States
  411 F.2d 679· D.C. Cir.· 1968-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions regarding malice aforethought and manslaughter were adequate and did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Fisher
  387 F.2d 165· 2d Cir.· 1967-12-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's status as a union financial secretary was sufficient to fall under the statute, the information was not duplicitous, and his statement to a government agent was admissible.
• Mickelson v. United States
  346 F.2d 952· 9th Cir.· 1965-06-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions, thus affirming the conviction.
• Corey v. United States
  346 F.2d 65· 1st Cir.· 1965-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow evidence of the defendant's income tax liability, as it was collateral and not probative of the witness's credibility or bias.
• Noah v. United States
  304 F.2d 317· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction on count 8, and other issues were rendered moot by concurrent sentences.
• United States v. Steiger
  99 F.4th 1316· 11th Cir.· 2024-04-29 ·cited 5×
  The Eleventh Circuit en banc held that unobjected-to sentencing explanation errors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) are reviewed for plain error, not per se reversal. The court further held that the district court did not commit plain error because the record made clear its reasons for
• Jenkins v. United States
  404 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence without objection is not plain error if other evidence supports the verdict, and that jury trial rights are not violated by in-chambers discussions of jury instructions.
• United States v. Williams
  985 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug offenses but reversed convictions for firearm offenses due to a defective jury instruction and insufficient evidence for two defendants.
• United States v. Sides
  944 F.2d 1554· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, and that the admission of prior convictions and crime scene photographs, as well as prosecutorial remarks, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Chambers
  922 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 4×
  A state indictment, even if later dismissed for procedural defects under state law, can serve as a predicate for federal firearms offenses if it was valid at the time of the firearm acquisition.
• United States v. Felton
  908 F.2d 186· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony, even if erroneous, did not constitute plain error because it did not likely change the outcome of the trial.
• United States v. Norris
  873 F.2d 1519· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a missing witness instruction, in misstating the law of entrapment, or in its participation in cross-examination, as none of these issues warranted reversal.
• United States v. Tito Santana-Camacho
  833 F.2d 371· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's misstatement that the defendant had himself entered the United States illegally constituted plain error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Cunningham
  804 F.2d 58· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while admitting a co-conspirator's guilty plea was error, it was harmless, and the prosecutor's improper reference to excluded evidence in closing argument, without a timely objection, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Klusman
  607 F.2d 1331· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 4×
  A judge may be mindful of a prior conviction that has been set aside under the Youth Corrections Act when sentencing, and a cautionary instruction regarding informant testimony is not required when the informant did not testify.
• United States v. Rodrigues
  491 F.2d 663· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the omission of jury instructions on the essential elements of the crime, specifically the intent to defraud, constituted plain error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Malasanos
  472 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-22 ·cited 4×
  A defendant's successful completion of a crime does not preclude a conviction for attempting that crime under the federal bank robbery statute. Furthermore, jury instructions regarding impeachment by prior conviction and the defendant's interest in the outcome were proper.
• United States v. Salcedo
  452 F.2d 1201· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that any improper remarks by co-defendant's counsel did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Pasqual William Ceniceros
  427 F.2d 685· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that comments by the prosecutor and trial court regarding a defense witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not constitute plain error, as they were aimed at alerting the jury to potential misuse of the privilege.
• United States v. Williams
  401 F.2d 901· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in admitting certain testimony, as any errors were either favorable to the defendant, not objected to, or did not affect substantial rights.
• Scott v. United States
  317 F.2d 908· D.C. Cir.· 1963-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of a heroin-filled cigarette package dropped by the accused, as no objection was made at trial.