Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 7(C)

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

• The United States v. Honorable W. Harold COX
  342 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1965-01-26 ·cited 268×
  The court held that a United States Attorney's signature is essential to the validity of an indictment and that the decision to sign or withhold a signature is an executive discretionary power that courts cannot coerce.
• United States v. Silverman
  430 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-01 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge the essential element of interstate commerce, and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that union funds were used for private benefit or with sham authorization, supporting convictions under 29 U.S.C.
• United States v. Turkish
  623 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 108×
  The court held that a trial judge should not inquire into the prosecution's refusal to grant use immunity to a prospective defense witness.
• The Kan. City Star Co. v. United States
  240 F.2d 643· 8th Cir.· 1957-01-23 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated the offenses charged under the Sherman Act and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on pre-trial motions, evidence admissibility, or jury instructions.
• The United States v. Levinson
  405 F.2d 971· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-30 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss based on alleged grand jury procedural irregularities or in refusing to allow inspection of grand jury minutes.
• United States v. Arteaga-Limones
  529 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 96×
• United States v. Noble C. Beasley
  519 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 90×
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy and tax evasion but reversed the sentence for filing a fraudulent tax return, finding no plain error in the jury instructions or the denial of severance.
• Gendron v. United States
  295 F.2d 897· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-08 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to appeal on jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence by failing to properly object or renew motions below, and that the indictment was not fatally defective. The court also found no plain error regarding the search and seiz
• United States v. Markham
  537 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination.
• United States v. Martell
  335 F.2d 764· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-10 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy Rule 7(c) and that the sentence, being within statutory limits, was not subject to appellate review.
• United States v. Bowe
  360 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-28 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the pre-trial rulings or the trial proceedings.
• Pollock v. United States
  202 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1953-02-27 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for tax evasion, and that the attorney-client privilege did not apply to testimony about the client's financial transactions.
• Hall v. United States
  410 F.2d 653· 4th Cir.· 1969-05-13 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the 1962 sentencing was valid and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing further psychiatric examination, and that the indictment was sufficient to charge an offense.
• United States v. Wander
  601 F.2d 1251· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-27 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the interstate travel and use of facilities were too casual and incidental to establish federal jurisdiction under the Travel Act for the alleged extortion scheme.
• United States v. Berardi
  675 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a count charging obstruction of justice was not prejudicially duplicitous, joinder of counts was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Josephson
  165 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1947-12-09 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the verdict, and the statute authorizing the committee's investigation was constitutional. The appellant's refusal to be sworn and testify before the committee constituted a violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192.
• Collins v. Markley
  346 F.2d 230· 7th Cir.· 1965-05-11 ·cited 50×
• United States v. Seymour Pollack
  534 F.2d 964· D.C. Cir.· 1976-03-31 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, and sale of unregistered securities, finding no reversible error in the speedy trial claims, indictment sufficiency, evidence, jury instructions, or Brady disclosures.
• United States v. Constant
  501 F.2d 1284· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the prosecutor's improper impeachment attempt was harmless error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for mail fraud.
• Stein v. United States
  313 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1962-12-13 ·cited 44×
  A conspiracy count in an indictment is not void for want of an allegation of an essential element of the substantive offense if the elements are alleged or necessarily implied, and the indictment is sufficient under modern pleading rules.
• Marteney v. United States
  218 F.2d 258· 10th Cir.· 1954-12-30 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the jury instructions were proper, and the prosecutor's cross-examination was not prejudicial, affirming the conviction.
• Stassi v. United States
  401 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence met the standards for a perjury prosecution, the jury instructions were proper, the commissioner complied with procedural rules, the jury selection was fair, and the refusal to disclose grand jury testimony was corre
• Huff v. United States
  273 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1959-12-14 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the admission of a customs inspector's opinion testimony on the nature of the merchandise was prejudicial error requiring reversal. The court also found insufficient evidence for conviction on the second count.
• Young v. United States
  212 F.2d 236· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-08 ·cited 39×
  A conviction for perjury is valid if the indictment sufficiently states the essential facts of the offense and the evidence supports the conviction, even if the jury selection had minor irregularities or the legislative committee's purpose was mixed.
• 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.
• Taylor v. United States
  332 F.2d 918· 8th Cir.· 1964-06-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the information was not fatally defective for failing to name the transferee and that the defendant received adequate assistance of counsel.
• Ramirez v. United States
  318 F.2d 155· 9th Cir.· 1963-05-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the indictment's allegations of willful misapplication, including distributing loan proceeds to unintended recipients, sufficiently stated an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 656, even without explicitly stating "intent to injure or defraud."
• Pasquale Masi v. United States
  223 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-15 ·cited 36×
  A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not a substitute for an appeal, and a sentence is not void or subject to collateral attack merely due to an erroneous statutory citation in the indictment if the defendant was not misled to his prejudice.
• United States v. Silver
  235 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-25 ·cited 34×
• United States v. Bell
  351 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1965-10-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting hearsay as a spontaneous utterance, limiting cross-examination on prior arrests, denying motions for a change of venue or continuance due to publicity, and denying a motion for a change of judge.
• United States v. Keig
  334 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the special agent's report was not a Jencks Act statement, the income tax laws are constitutional, the indictment was sufficient, and the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its instructions.
• United States v. Purvis
  580 F.2d 853· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-25 ·cited 31×
  An indictment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 241 is sufficient if it tracks the statutory language and factually alleges intent to deprive citizens of constitutional rights, even without using specific "intent" terms.
• United States v. Walker
  190 F.2d 481· 2d Cir.· 1951-07-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence was properly admitted, and summation remarks were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Quintero
  872 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in treating 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) as creating a separate offense and admitting evidence of prior convictions to the jury, this error was harmless. The court also affirmed the denial of severance and the admission of limited heroin e
• United States v. Edwards
  443 F.2d 1286· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence adequately proved the defendant was under oath, the jury instructions were proper, the admission of evidence of the defendant's escape was not an abuse of discretion, and the evidence was sufficient to support a conv
• United States v. Rook
  424 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 30×
  A guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defenses, and the record demonstrated the defendant understood the charge and factual basis for his plea, even without a formal Rule 11 inquiry.
• Hunt v. United States
  400 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt for violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 1503, and that the indictment and jury selection process were legally sufficient.
• United States v. Amorosa
  167 F.2d 596· 3d Cir.· 1948-04-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the indictment against Silano was not defective, the use of photographs of Amorosa was permissible, and the evidence supported conviction as principals rather than accessories. The trial judge's conduct and jury instructions were also found to be proper.
• United States v. Pavloski
  574 F.2d 933· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that forging and cashing checks on a union's account, even if the bank initially pays its own funds, constitutes embezzlement of union funds because the check forms themselves are union property and the union's account is debited. The court also held that a single
• United States v. Quinn
  365 F.2d 256· 7th Cir.· 1966-08-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Counts II and IV of the indictment were fatally defective for failing to state an offense, and that the defendant was prejudiced by the joinder of counts and the denial of severance.
• Haddad v. United States
  349 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1965-08-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for preparing a false document for the Department of State was valid, and his claims of double jeopardy, unconstitutionality of the statute, insufficient indictment, lack of jurisdiction, and improper venue were without merit.
• United States v. McKNIGHT
  253 F.2d 817· 2d Cir.· 1958-04-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the refusal to give a specific jury instruction regarding a 'stake in success' was proper, and that multiple counts for a single conspiracy are permissible if sentences do not exceed the statutory maximum.
• United States v. David A. Sturman (90-3147)
  951 F.2d 1466· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the 'defraud' clause of 18 U.S.C. § 371 was applicable to the broad conspiracy charged, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of David Sturman and Ralph Levine. The court also found that the willfulness element for Reuben Sturman's fa
• United States v. Fulcher
  626 F.2d 985· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that counts alleging only an intent to perform in the future, without alleging misrepresentation of present or past facts, fail to state an offense for false pretenses. The court also held that a sua sponte jury instruction regarding the defendant's failure to test
• Brown v. United States
  299 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing under a specific statute if the government consented, otherwise ordered a new trial for two appellants.
• United States v. Chaney
  964 F.2d 437· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction and restitution order, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, indictment sufficiency, evidence sufficiency, or restitution calculation.
• United States v. Garfoli
  324 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1963-11-22 ·cited 24×
  The indictment was sufficient to charge a conspiracy under Title 21 U.S.C. § 174, and the trial court erred in dismissing it for failure to allege an overt act involving the defendant.
• Korholz v. United States
  269 F.2d 897· 10th Cir.· 1959-08-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of the statutory offense, and the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions.
• United States v. Smith
  543 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his car and voluntarily made his statement after being informed of his Miranda rights, making the evidence admissible.
• United States v. Puma
  937 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-22 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to produce and sell amphetamines but vacated one defendant's sentence due to an insufficient finding of reasonable foreseeability regarding drug quantities.