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

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

• United States v. Soles
  401 F.2d 521· 6th Cir.· 1968-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that charging multiple conspiracies as a single conspiracy under one count constitutes reversible error due to variance and improper joinder, except for defendants involved in all conspiracies.
• 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. Breitkreutz
  977 F.2d 214· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike testimony for alleged grand jury abuse, nor in admitting the drug ledger and a co-conspirator's judgment and commitment order.
• United States v. Xiomaro E. Hernandez
  975 F.2d 1035· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting extraneous evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because its probative value was slight and substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Rising
  867 F.2d 1255· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for murder and possession of a knife were supported by sufficient evidence and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings by the trial court did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Harris
  814 F.2d 155· 4th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's technical violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a) was harmless error and that the defendant's counsel's failure to request a witness list during voir dire waived that issue.
• United States v. Reed
  631 F.2d 87· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant testifying before a grand jury, who is not in custody and not under indictment, is not entitled to Miranda warnings, and their testimony can be used against them at trial.
• Rich v. United States
  389 F.2d 334· 8th Cir.· 1968-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while testimony regarding the defendant's knowledge of the illegality of her actions was irrelevant to the charges and the entrapment defense, its admission was not prejudicial error requiring reversal because the evidence of guilt was strong and no objection
• United States v. Nicholas Castano & Theresa Rodriguez
  999 F.2d 615· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-15
  The court held that a defendant who goes to trial to assert issues not related to factual guilt may be entitled to an acceptance of responsibility reduction, but otherwise, denying factual guilt at trial forecloses such a reduction. The court also held that the erroneous admissio
• United States v. Nazarenus
  983 F.2d 1480· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-27
  The court held that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in jury selection, the stipulation regarding Indian country was sufficient, and evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were either not erroneous or constitut
• United States v. Flenoid
  949 F.2d 970· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-21
  The court held that the improper exclusion of a key witness's prior testimony, which was not harmless error, required reversal of the conviction and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Dennis
  902 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-16
  A premature notice of appeal filed before the imposition of costs is ineffective to challenge those later costs.
• United States v. Hood
  748 F.2d 439· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-05
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, ruling on impeachment, or refusing the accomplice jury instruction, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. McCall
  291 F.2d 859· 2d Cir.· 1961-06-26
  The court held that the admission of seized documents was harmless error because the defendant admitted writing the letter, and that the prosecution's closing statement did not constitute reversible error.