Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)

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

• Bearden v. United States
  320 F.2d 99· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-10 ·cited 26×
• United States v. Hemant Patel
  762 F.2d 784· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, affirming the convictions and sentences.
• United States v. Perl
  584 F.2d 1316· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-22 ·cited 25×
• United States v. Patrick
  959 F.2d 991· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The television receipt was not hearsay when offered to show the defendant's connection to the apartment and television, not for the truth of payment.
• United States v. Curran
  926 F.2d 59· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 24×
  A sentencing court must either disclose documents it relies on for factual content or clearly state it is not using them for factual content, to afford the defendant a fair opportunity to challenge them.
• United States v. Burton
  871 F.2d 1566· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for embezzlement and conspiracy to embezzle, and that other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Roth
  736 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a coconspirator's testimony about his agreement with the government, even without a limiting instruction, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severanc
• United States v. Lewis
  406 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the convictions of Lewis and Sohn for conspiracy and substantive offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that certain evidentiary rulings and limitations on testimony did not constitute reversible error. Lewis's convictions on two counts were dismis
• United States v. Drummond
  903 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 22×
  The dissent argues that a trial court's failure to inform a defendant of their right to appeal, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(2), should not be subject to harmless error analysis.
• United States v. Pupo
  841 F.2d 1235· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 22×
  A conviction under an indictment that fails to allege an essential element of the offense, specifically scienter, is invalid if the objection is raised before verdict. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative does not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Medansky
  486 F.2d 807· 7th Cir.· 1973-10-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to a hung jury, nor did it err in subsequent rulings during the second trial, affirming the conviction.
• Bearden v. United States
  403 F.2d 782· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's observation of a co-defendant's guilty plea and the judge's comment on it in the jury charge, while not ideal, did not constitute reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the lack of demonstrable unfairness.
• United States v. Prantil
  764 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to recuse the prosecutor, who was a material witness, and that the prosecutor's summation contained prejudicial misconduct. The court also held that the defendant's statements regarding an
• United States v. Bates
  512 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a prosecutor's brief, unchallenged comment on a defendant's failure to testify, when followed by curative jury instructions, did not constitute plain error warranting reversal.
• United States v. Buford L. Peak & Bennie L. Peak
  856 F.2d 825· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The exclusion of hearsay evidence regarding Bennie Peak's state of mind was harmless error and did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. McRARY
  665 F.2d 674· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Buschman
  527 F.2d 1082· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a cautionary instruction regarding hearsay testimony at the time it was admitted, provided the jury receives a complete and correct instruction later and there is no manifest prejudice to the defen
• United States v. Chason
  451 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the mailings were sufficiently integral to the scheme to constitute federal mail fraud, and that the erroneous exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's state of mind was harmless error.
• United States v. Kahan & Lessin Co. & Landstrom Distribs., Inc.
  695 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that inadvertent intrusions into grand jury proceedings, evidentiary errors, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant dismissal of the indictment or reversal of the conviction, as they were either nonprejudicial, harmless, or cured by instructions.
• United States v. Armored Transp., Inc.
  629 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-07 ·cited 18×
  A federal grand jury's service for purposes of Rule 6(g) commences on the date it is impaneled and sworn, not when it is authorized to begin serving. However, a conviction will be affirmed if the charges are not infamous crimes, allowing prosecution by information even if the ind
• Hardy Joseph Owens and John Link Cogdill v. United States
  221 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous and the proof did not show a material variance, affirming the convictions because any potential errors did not substantially prejudice the appellants.
• United States v. Mazzanti
  888 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
• United States v. Doyle E. Campbell
  845 F.2d 1374· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court should have excluded testimony of patients not listed in the indictment as it was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove character rather than intent for the charged offenses.
• United States v. Jensen
  608 F.2d 1349· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's fraudulent scheme involving investment contracts constituted fraud in the sale of securities under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and that collateral estoppel and discovery errors did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Anton
  547 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that misdelivered mail remains 'in the mail' even after lawful removal from a receptacle, and a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the exact location of the theft is harmless if it does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
• United States v. Barta
  888 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 14×
• United States v. LeAMOUS
  754 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the complainant's sexual relationship with the defendant, denying a writ for a witness, or admitting rebuttal evidence.
• United States v. Bodey
  547 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal at the first trial, nor in refusing a second competency examination during the second trial, and that the prosecutor's comment was harmless error.
• United States v. Carney
  461 F.2d 465· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding unrelated violent acts, even with a curative instruction, constituted reversible error because it was highly prejudicial and could not be considered harmless.
• Almon Boyd Smith v. United States
  385 F.2d 252· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under the Dyer Act and that the exclusion of certain testimony regarding the appellant's state of mind was not an abuse of discretion and, in any event, constituted harmless error.
• United States v. Noah
  594 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that inquiring about the numerical division of a deliberating jury constitutes plain error requiring reversal.
• Gresham v. United States
  374 F.2d 389· 8th Cir.· 1967-03-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a gun, even if improper, was harmless error because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights given the strength of the evidence.
• Knight v. United States
  225 F.2d 55· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the failure to formally file an information detailing a prior conviction was harmless error when the defendant admitted his prior conviction and identity in open court.
• United States v. Brown
  921 F.2d 1304· D.C. Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was harmless error, and the sentence enhancement was valid due to substantial compliance with statutory filing requirements.
• United States v. Larrazolo
  869 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, and therefore, the indictment stands.
• United States v. Conover
  772 F.2d 765· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants' conspiracy to defraud Seminole Electric, a recipient of federal loan assistance, did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 371 because Seminole Electric was not a federal agency or performing a federal function.
• United States v. Bishop
  492 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the inadvertent delivery of an unadmitted exhibit to the jury did not constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial, as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the exhibit was not inflammatory.
• United States v. Marr
  428 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to poll the jury by not requesting it after the verdict was announced and that a minor variance in the indictment was not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Isidro Farias-Farias
  925 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his prior arrests and the nature of those arrests, as this evidence was admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence of guilt, and any potential error was ha
• United States v. White
  788 F.2d 390· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's petition for rehearing should be denied because no substantial error affecting the outcome of the trial was committed.
• United States v. Lane
  708 F.2d 1394· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(a) was violated by the substitution of judges, the error did not affect substantial rights and thus did not warrant reversal. Other alleged errors regarding impeachment, jury instructions, and prosecutorial misconduc
• United States v. Rody Charles Grey
  422 F.2d 1043· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed Williams' conviction but vacated Grey's conviction and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Boyce
  340 F.2d 418· 4th Cir.· 1964-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's confession, which implicated the appellant and was made after the co-conspirator pleaded guilty, constituted prejudicial error.
• Chereton v. United States
  286 F.2d 409· 6th Cir.· 1961-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because the questions and answers set forth therein clearly showed materiality to the bankruptcy inquiry, and the trial judge's questioning of a witness was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Gassler
  943 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that references to a murder during trial constituted harmless error and that the upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was reasonable.
• United States v. Mechanik
  756 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant subject to retrial after a mistrial due to a hung jury has no colorable double jeopardy claim appealable before final judgment, following Richardson v. United States.
• United States v. Beliard
  618 F.2d 886· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for inducing and encouraging unlawful alien entry and evasion of immigration laws was supported by sufficient evidence and proper venue, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Youssef Saleh (88-1200)
  875 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-18 ·cited 4×
  The joint indictment and trial violated Rule 8(b) and prejudiced the defendants, requiring severance.
• 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. 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.