Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(B)

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

• Nixon v. United States
  309 F.2d 316· D.C. Cir.· 1962-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to give requested jury instructions regarding the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence constituted plain error.
• United States v. Paradise
  253 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1958-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arrest and searches were legal, and the defendant's consent to search the apartment was clear, thus no plain error occurred.
• United States v. Betty J. Johnson (86-1993)
  831 F.2d 124· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a non-practitioner selling bogus prescriptions for controlled substances can be convicted of unlawful distribution, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy convictions of all defendants.
• United States v. Ashley
  587 F.2d 841· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the inference from possession of recently stolen property was plain error as applied to the defendant for the interstate transportation charge, but sufficient evidence supported the conviction for selling the stolen automobile.
• United States v. Copelin
  996 F.2d 379· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while admitting evidence of the defendant's positive drug tests for impeachment was proper, the failure to provide an immediate limiting instruction to the jury constituted plain error.
• United States v. Bruce
  984 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that any error in cross-examining the defendant's son about his academic past was harmless, and the jury instructions and sentencing enhancements were proper.
• United States v. Moralez
  964 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence were supported by sufficient evidence and that his various claims of error, including denial of a suppression hearing, improper prosecutorial argument, sentencing enhancement, and ineffective assistance of counsel, were
• United States v. Barnett
  945 F.2d 1296· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the subjective standard for a good faith mistaken belief defense and that the exclusion of certain documentary evidence was either proper or harmless error.
• United States v. Dweck
  913 F.2d 365· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no plain error regarding a witness's mention of prior imprisonment, and no Brady violation.
• United States v. Piggie
  622 F.2d 486· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that they were not required to accept judicially noticed facts as conclusive was not reversible error, as the evidence was overwhelming and the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, allowed the jury to de
• United States v. Winfred Wade Payne
  529 F.2d 1353· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting the indictment for a prior felony into evidence was proper, and the failure to give a limiting instruction was not plain error.
• United States v. Emmett Thomas
  452 F.2d 1373· D.C. Cir.· 1971-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior conviction for impeachment, even if the defendant was not actually convicted of that specific crime, was not plain error when the defendant and counsel had the opportunity to correct the record and did not object at trial.
• United States v. Bridges
  D.D.C.· 1970-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for assault with intent to kill, assault with a dangerous weapon, and carrying a pistol without a license should be affirmed.
• United States v. Romeo Luan Arreola
  422 F.2d 869· 10th Cir.· 1970-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not plain error when the evidence only supports the greater offense.
• United States v. Leysith
  411 F.2d 1184· 4th Cir.· 1969-06-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction on false exculpatory statements was irrelevant and not plain error, and an additional issue regarding palm print admissibility was without substance.
• Scott v. United States
  335 F.2d 214· 9th Cir.· 1964-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the effect of a prior felony conviction on a witness's credibility, when considered in context with the entire charge, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Davis
  320 F.2d 660· 4th Cir.· 1963-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instructions were not plain error, as the evidence of the defendant's knowledge was sufficient and the trial court adequately instructed the jury on the elements of the offense.
• Cordell F. Harris v. United States
  299 F.2d 931· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of testimony, to which no objection was made at trial, was not plain error affecting substantial rights and was harmless error at most.
• United States v. Windsor
  981 F.2d 943· 7th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel or an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance.
• United States v. Davis
  974 F.2d 182· D.C. Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that prosecutorial statements about perjury, the trial court's reading of testimony, and a transcription error did not constitute reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Montanye
  996 F.2d 190· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-08
  The court affirmed the sentence because even if the defendant's calculation of the lab's production capacity were accepted, the same sentence would have been required.
• Smith v. Gulf OIL Co.
  995 F.2d 638· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-03
  The court held that the district court did not err in foreclosing the plaintiffs' belated argument regarding shipowners' liability for secondary cigarette smoke exposure, nor in allowing alternate jurors to participate in deliberations under a stipulation.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Mujahid
  990 F.2d 111· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-05
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's guilty plea without a specific limiting instruction was not plain error, as the admissible evidence of guilt was overwhelming and there was no evidence of deliberate prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Herrera-Martinez
  985 F.2d 298· 6th Cir.· 1993-02-09
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make an express finding that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived her right to counsel, requiring a remand for a competency hearing.
• United States v. Domingo Pimental
  979 F.2d 282· 2d Cir.· 1992-10-23
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(B) does not require a racial or discriminatory motive for conviction. The court also found no plain error in the jury instructions for the § 245 and bail-jumping counts.
• United States v. Hanley
  974 F.2d 14· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-28
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw counsel and that a jury instruction error did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Delibac
  925 F.2d 610· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-19
  The court held that the admission of a firearm under the plain view doctrine was proper, the jury charge on reasonable doubt did not constitute plain error, and the sentencing guidelines do not violate due process by allegedly vesting undue authority in prosecutors.
• United States v. Thompson
  866 F.2d 268· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-30
  The court held that a defendant's equivocal statements do not constitute an assertion of the right to remain silent, and that time taken to rule on pretrial motions is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Ortega
  859 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-24
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction on constructive possession was not plain error, the jury instructions adequately covered the elements of the offense, and the district court had jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence while an appeal was pending.
• Dorsula Lewis v. Millsaps Coll.
  759 F.2d 1239· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-13
  The court held that a minor, unobjected-to error in jury instructions, which was corrected by subsequent instructions and unlikely to have misled the jury, does not warrant reversal under the plain error doctrine.
• United States v. Karlton Morgan
  595 F.2d 1168· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-30
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to appeal the admission of a tape recording by failing to make a timely objection or motion to suppress at trial.
• United States v. Caruso
  465 F.2d 1369· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-05
  The court held that even if the prosecutor's cross-examination was improper, the errors were harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the fact that the substance of the statements had already been presented.
• United States v. Glynn P. Todd
  463 F.2d 302· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-28
  The court held that any error in the jury instructions regarding the 'putting in fear' element of robbery was not plain error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Owen
  455 F.2d 500· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-03
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing a dismissed co-conspirator to remain in the courtroom.
• United States v. Henderson
  404 F.2d 832· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-10
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's oral confession was not reversible error, nor was the denial of his mistrial motions.
• Cirilio Garay, Jr. v. United States
  399 F.2d 696· 5th Cir.· 1968-07-25
  The court held that the admission of appellant's uncounseled, in-custody statements, obtained without Miranda warnings, constituted plain error.
• Carter v. United States
  343 F.2d 344· D.C. Cir.· 1964-12-17
• Streett v. United States
  337 F.2d 227· 8th Cir.· 1964-10-23
  The court held that the trial judge's remarks during the defendant's testimony were not prejudicial error and did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Demetracakis
  334 F.2d 781· 7th Cir.· 1964-07-10
  The court held that a confession obtained from a defendant, who was advised of his rights and not subjected to illegal detention or coercion, was admissible even if the defendant was tired and worried about other charges.
• Levin v. United States
  338 F.2d 265· D.C. Cir.· 1964-06-30
  The court held that the trial court's erroneous rulings and charge regarding habit evidence were prejudicial and required reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Brown
  324 F.2d 41· 4th Cir.· 1963-11-04
  The court held that the failure to define 'possession' in jury instructions was not reversible error because the defendants did not object and no issue of possession was raised at trial, as their defense was an alibi.
• Menard Wright v. United States
  320 F.2d 782· D.C. Cir.· 1963-07-05
  The court held that the trial court's flight instruction, while erroneous, did not constitute plain error requiring reversal because the evidence of flight had slight independent significance in the context of the crucial issue of identification.
• Chew v. United States
  298 F.2d 334· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-25
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for grand larceny should be affirmed because the lack of objection to hearsay evidence of value waived the issue on appeal, and no instruction on petit larceny was required.
• Daniels v. United States
  281 F.2d 71· D.C. Cir.· 1960-07-14