Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(B) (Joinder Of Defendants)

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

• Tillman v. United States
  406 F.2d 930· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-09 ·cited 299×
  The court held that the trial court's investigation into alleged juror misconduct was adequate, despite a minor date discrepancy in the judge's questioning.
• United States v. Louin Ray Bright
  630 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 230×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the pre-trial rulings, trial rulings, jury charge, or closing arguments.
• United States v. Berkowitz
  662 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 189×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, limiting cross-examination, or in its handling of other issues raised by the defendants.
• United States v. Russell
  703 F.2d 1243· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 164×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was permissible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Kenny
  462 F.2d 1205· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 139×
  The court held that the indictment was not vague, duplicitous, or fatally varied, and that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Cravero
  545 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-06 ·cited 136×
  Entry into a third party's home to execute an arrest warrant is permissible without a search warrant if officers reasonably believe the suspect is present.
• United States v. Franks
  511 F.2d 25· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-12 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, and that the admission of evidence, including tape recordings and voiceprint analysis, did not constitute reversible error. The court also found no violation of speedy trial rights or grounds for recusal.
• United States v. Bledsoe
  674 F.2d 647· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-12 ·cited 115×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the existence of a RICO enterprise and that joinder of defendants was proper, or any misjoinder constituted harmless error.
• United States v. Levine
  546 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-07 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the indictment improperly joined separate and distinct conspiracies in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), requiring reversal of the convictions and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Jacki Eugene Leach
  429 F.2d 956· 8th Cir.· 1970-07-23 ·cited 101×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for assaulting federal officers were supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial errors alleged were either harmless or properly handled by the trial court.
• United States v. Bohr
  581 F.2d 1294· 8th Cir.· 1978-07-26 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior crimes, the introduction of a mug shot, the denial of severance, prosecutorial remarks, juror misconduct, and the exclusion of polygraph evidence did not constitute reversible error.
• King v. United States
  355 F.2d 700· 1st Cir.· 1966-01-18 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was improper under Rule 8(b) because the alleged offenses did not constitute a "series of acts or transactions" in which the defendant King participated.
• United States v. Wilson
  894 F.2d 1245· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror for just cause and proceeding with an eleven-person verdict, and that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified a warrantless vehicle search. However, the district court erred in co
• United States v. Welch
  656 F.2d 1039· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the RICO substantive count provided sufficient nexus to join two otherwise separate conspiracies under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b), and affirmed convictions for most defendants and charges, but reversed Satterwhite's RICO conviction due to insufficient evidence.
• James v. United States
  416 F.2d 467· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that various alleged trial errors, including issues with jury selection, indictment sufficiency, search warrants, joinder, co-defendant statements, jury instructions, grand jury testimony disclosure, de
• Smith F. Brandom, Jr. v. United States
  431 F.2d 1391· 7th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting certain evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Butera
  677 F.2d 1376· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 86×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence, witness sequestration, judicial remarks, prosecutorial comments, or jury selection. The court also affirmed the joinder and severance rulings for DeNoma, and applied the concurrent sente
• United States v. Vaccaro
  816 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 85×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper, severance was not required, and evidence of other crimes was admissible under Rule 404(b). Aiding and abetting violations of the Travel Act do not require proof of knowledge of interstate facility use.
• United States v. Zicree
  605 F.2d 1381· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-08 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the mail fraud convictions, joinder of defendants was proper, and the trial judge did not err in denying motions for a new trial, giving an Allen charge, or qualifying an expert witness.
• United States v. Cruz
  478 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-04 ·cited 85×
  The court held that indictments based on hearsay are valid, destroyed notes do not violate the Jencks Act if not substantially verbatim, and variance or joinder issues do not require reversal absent prejudice, especially in a bench trial.
• United States v. Eagleston
  417 F.2d 11· 10th Cir.· 1969-10-17 ·cited 82×
  The court held that Faubian was misjoined as a defendant under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) and his conviction must be reversed, while Eagleston's convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Sophie
  900 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Poliak's motion for an evidentiary hearing on his alleged plea agreement, nor in denying Laskowski's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, nor in admitting evidence of Laskowski's prior marijuana dealing
• United States v. Luna
  585 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting the heroin despite chain of custody challenges, limiting cross-examination, admitting rebuttal testimony, or refusing a specific jury instruction.
• United States v. Hensley Garner
  837 F.2d 1404· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 69×
  Joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) because a conspiracy was alleged, and severance was not required under Rule 14 as defendants failed to show sufficient prejudice from the joint trial.
• United States v. Weaver
  905 F.2d 1466· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 67×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the immunity agreement unambiguously limited its scope to offenses committed between 1981 and 1985, and that the use of evidence from 1985 offenses against other defendants was permissible.
• United States v. Mills
  597 F.2d 693· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the issue of vindictive sentencing could not be considered on appeal because the appellant relied on an affidavit not included in the record and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c).
• United States v. Buljubasic
  808 F.2d 1260· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, that Pavlovic's double jeopardy claim was barred by his repeated motions for mistrial, and that Buljubasic's other claims of error were either harmless or without merit.
• United States v. Rogers
  921 F.2d 975· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 63×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are not required for routine post-conviction presentence interviews, and that delays caused by speedy trial motions are excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Andrews
  765 F.2d 1491· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 63×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the joinder of defendants was proper, the entrapment defense was insufficient as a matter of law, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or jury instruction ruling
• United States v. Martinez
  479 F.2d 824· 1st Cir.· 1973-05-08 ·cited 63×
  Joinder of defendants in the indictment was proper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) as the offenses constituted a series of transactions, and the denial of severance under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion as no prejudice was shown.
• United States v. Lushrie Jardan and Harold Hudson
  552 F.2d 216· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-21 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior criminal conduct was proper to show intent and that the denial of severance motions was not an abuse of discretion.
• Haggard v. United States
  369 F.2d 968· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, with proper instructions, did not cause prejudicial error.
• United States v. Andrade
  788 F.2d 521· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the denial of the mistrial motion based on jury selection, the sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy and fraud charges, or the denial of severance motions.
• United States v. Gentile
  495 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the unrelated offense in Count 3 was improperly joined with Counts 1 and 2 for Gentile, requiring reversal of his conviction. The court affirmed Marquart's conviction, finding no merit to his claims of suppressed evidence or newly discovered evidence.
• United States v. Daddano
  432 F.2d 1119· 7th Cir.· 1970-10-01 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, the denial of a continuance due to pretrial publicity was not an abuse of discretion, and the trial court's handling of publicity during trial and restrictions on cross-examination were not reversible error. C
• Baker v. United States
  393 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-04 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was permissible, the denial of motions for severance and speedy trial was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the discrepancies in the indictment and admission of a co-d
• United States v. Lindell
  881 F.2d 1313· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the joinder of defendants, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous claims.
• United States v. Teitler
  802 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury instructions on RICO conspiracy were proper and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for RICO conspiracy and mail fraud.
• United States v. Adams
  581 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and charges was proper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) due to the conspiracy charge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance under Rule 14. The court also affirmed the admissibility of hypnotically refreshe
• United States v. Bond
  847 F.2d 1233· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for CCE status, upholding joint trials, and allowing admission of evidence and denial of recusal motions.
• United States v. Sutton
  605 F.2d 260· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 54×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the convictions on substantive counts despite potential misjoinder, finding no reversible prejudice and agreeing with the denial of suppression motions.
• Malatkofski v. United States
  179 F.2d 905· 1st Cir.· 1950-01-25 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, the denial of severance motions was proper, and the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions.
• United States v. Jabara
  618 F.2d 1319· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-02 ·cited 53×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that probable cause existed for arrests, exigent circumstances justified warrantless arrests, evidence was lawfully seized, and the wiretaps were valid.
• United States v. Nettles
  570 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendants were misjoined under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) because the indictment did not allege participation in the same series of acts or transactions. The court also held that there was insufficient evidence to prove Nettles' membership in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Porter
  821 F.2d 968· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 50×
  The dissenting judge would reverse all convictions and grant new trials due to cumulative errors in admitting evidence and improperly joining defendants.
• United States v. Wilson
  715 F.2d 1164· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the defendants' numerous allegations of error, including issues with voir dire, prosecutorial misconduct, severance, juror misconduct, impeachment of a witness, and sufficiency of evidence, were without merit.
• United States v. Manzella
  782 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 48×
  A conspiracy to commit an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) can serve as a predicate act for a RICO violation, and midtrial publicity does not warrant reversal if actual prejudice is not shown.
• United States v. Harrison Odell Leach
  613 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Schaffer
  266 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1959-04-21 ·cited 48×
  The court held that aggregating the value of multiple shipments of stolen goods is permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 to meet the $5,000 threshold, and that the joint trial of defendants was not prejudicial despite the dismissal of the conspiracy count.
• United States v. Reynolds
  489 F.2d 4· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-21 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the joint trial of defendants for unrelated offenses was prejudicial error as to one defendant, requiring reversal, but that the other defendant's convictions were not tainted by the same issues.