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

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

• Metheany v. United States
  365 F.2d 90· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants in the indictment was improper under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Randy Lamont Patterson aka Randy Brown
  819 F.2d 1495· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, severance denials, or procedural errors. Joinder was proper, coconspirator testimony admissible, and prosecutorial misconduct, while present, was not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Thomann
  609 F.2d 560· 1st Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of his wife's fingerprints, and that his other claims regarding severance, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• United States v. Santoni
  585 F.2d 667· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions under the Hobbs Act were supported by sufficient nexus to interstate commerce and that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions.
• United States v. Martin
  567 F.2d 849· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the joinder of the defendant with his co-defendant was improper under Rule 8(b), the error was harmless because the overwhelming evidence related to the joint activity and the district court provided a limiting instruction.
• United States v. Rafeal Wofford
  562 F.2d 582· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was permissible under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance or in its evidentiary rulings and instructions.
• United States v. Dickens
  695 F.2d 765· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment's references to the defendants' religious organization were necessary to prove the RICO enterprise and pattern of racketeering, and that the defendants' waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, precluding claims of error regarding counsel pa
• United States v. Kershner
  432 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that edited confessions used in a joint trial, consistent with Bruton v. United States, and the procedures followed during investigation and trial did not violate defendants' rights or result in an unfair trial.
• Ward v. United States
  289 F.2d 877· D.C. Cir.· 1961-05-04 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the joinder of unrelated charges against multiple defendants, even if one defendant is acquitted on some charges, is prejudicial and requires reversal.
• United States v. Cavale
  688 F.2d 1098· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance, finding that the defendants participated in a series of acts constituting a single criminal enterprise, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of Kovic and Cavale.
• United States v. Talavera
  668 F.2d 625· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-14 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of evidence regarding a heroin episode was not reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Anderson
  642 F.2d 281· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the joinder of conspiracy and tax evasion counts was proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions.
• United States v. Satterfield
  548 F.2d 1341· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 38×
  Joinder of a defendant in an indictment is improper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) if the offenses charged do not arise from the same series of transactions, even if the offenses are similar in character.
• Slocum v. United States
  325 F.2d 465· 8th Cir.· 1963-12-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, accepting a co-defendant's guilty plea, or refusing to strike a witness's testimony, and that the jury's verdict was valid.
• United States v. Maggitt
  784 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions for witness tampering and retaliation, and that any misjoinder of defendants was harmless error. The indictment was also found to be sufficient and not multiplicious.
• United States v. Allan Harvey Bibby (82-5705)
  752 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the misjoinder of certain tax counts was harmless error, and that while multiple conspiracies existed, the defendants were not prejudiced by being charged with a single conspiracy, except for Gillock's conspiracy conviction which was reversed due to prejudice
• United States v. Ulysses Gougis, Jr.
  374 F.2d 758· 7th Cir.· 1967-03-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants with unrelated offenses and the joint representation of co-defendants with conflicting interests violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, requiring reversal of one defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Gorham
  523 F.2d 1088· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the record inadequate to address the jury nullification issue and no plain error.
• United States v. Davis
  436 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant Dennie's motion for a continuance, nor did it err in denying Davis' motions for severance, suppression, and dismissal of count three.
• Miller v. United States
  410 F.2d 1290· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the alleged trial errors, including evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial comments, were harmless.
• United States v. Ray T. Davis (80-5015) & Raymond Wallace (80-5023)
  707 F.2d 880· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 30×
  Joinder of defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b) is improper if based solely on a substantive RICO count without evidence of connection between the various predicate acts or defendant's participation in the full scope of racketeering.
• United States v. Patterson
  455 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and the joint trial were proper because they were alleged to have participated in the same series of acts constituting mail fraud, and the trial court took adequate steps to prevent prejudice.
• Chubet v. United States
  414 F.2d 1018· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the joinder of defendant Chubet with other defendants for offenses in which he did not participate was improper, requiring reversal of his conviction. Kauffmann's conviction was affirmed as alleged errors in the jury charge were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Bear
  863 F.2d 572· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 28×
  The en banc court, equally divided, affirmed the district court's order finding proper joinder, meaning the panel's prior order granting a new trial based on misjoinder was vacated.
• United States v. Carmichael
  685 F.2d 903· 4th Cir.· 1982-08-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the vote-buying statute applies to elections where federal and state offices are contested, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy, vote buying, and obstruction of justice.
• United States v. Barbosa
  666 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the denial of the severance motion was not an abuse of discretion and that prosecutorial misconduct claims were unfounded.
• United States v. Whitehead
  539 F.2d 1023· 4th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly joining two defendants for trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 13 and 8(b) when their alleged criminal acts were independent and lacked a concert of purpose.
• Peterson v. United States
  405 F.2d 102· 8th Cir.· 1968-12-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were not subject to reversal due to issues of joinder, jury instructions, statutory interpretation, delay in arrest, or sufficiency of evidence, affirming the judgments.
• United States v. Bostic
  713 F.2d 401· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while severance should have been granted due to mutually antagonistic defenses, the denial was harmless error because the overwhelming evidence of guilt would have led to the same guilty verdicts. The admission of testimony regarding the robbers' race based on
• United States v. Davis
  663 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they demonstrate a sufficient offer of proof of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant regarding material information in a search warrant affidavit. The court also held that
• United States v. Silvio R. Diaz-Munoz
  632 F.2d 1330· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its handling of Brady materials and in its joinder of offenses and defendants, requiring reversal and remand for new trials.
• Pacelli v. United States
  588 F.2d 360· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the petitioner raised a constitutional claim regarding "spillover" prejudice from a double jeopardy-barred conspiracy charge, he failed to demonstrate actual prejudice, and therefore the denial of his motion to vacate the substantive convictions is affir
• United States v. Ellsworth
  481 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1973-06-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, admitting co-conspirator statements, or in its rulings on the scope of cross-examination and disclosure of exculpatory evidence. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• Daley v. United States
  231 F.2d 123· 1st Cir.· 1956-03-30 ·cited 26×
  Consolidation of informations for trial was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for engaging in a gambling business without paying the required tax or registering.
• United States v. Jackson
  562 F.2d 789· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the District Court retained jurisdiction over a District of Columbia offense that was properly joined with a federal offense, even after severance.
• United States v. McDANIEL
  538 F.2d 408· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the admission of voiceprint evidence was erroneous, it was harmless error given the overwhelming independent evidence of the appellant's guilt.
• United States v. Scott
  413 F.2d 932· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-28 ·cited 24×
  Joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) because their actions constituted a series of transactions part of a common plan, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance under Rule 14 as no prejudice was shown.
• Scheve v. United States
  184 F.2d 695· D.C. Cir.· 1950-08-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for separate trials, as the offenses and defendants were properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and no prejudice resulted.
• United States v. Thornberg
  844 F.2d 573· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendants' severance motions were properly handled, and other arguments regarding evidence, jury instructions, and preindictment delay lacked merit.
• United States v. Sabatino
  943 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, that evidentiary rulings were proper or harmless, and that sentencing adjustments for obstruction of justice and leading role were appropriate, but vacated
• United States v. Willis
  940 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper and the district court did not err in enhancing the offense level for obstruction of justice or denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
• United States v. Mendoza
  876 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that Mendoza's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, the mandatory minimum penalties were constitutional, the evidence supported a single conspiracy, severance was not warranted, and any error in admitting other crime
• United States v. Dounias
  777 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) because the conspiracy charge was brought in good faith, and severance was not required under Rule 14 as the appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. The evidence was also sufficient to support the
• United States v. Wright
  564 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of a mistrial, the search of a home based on a mother's consent, the limitation of cross-examination regarding a witness's alleged prostitution charge, and the denial of recalling a witness for further cross-examination were not prejudicial errors.
• United States v. Pacente
  490 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1973-12-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for severance, as the joinder of the extortion and false declaration counts created undue prejudice.
• United States v. Eldon Wayne McKUIN
  434 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, the limitation on cross-examination was not prejudicial, and the witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Perry
  731 F.2d 985· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joint trial of both defendants was proper under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8(b) and 14, and that other claims of error were without merit.
• United States v. Novia Turkette, Jr.
  656 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that joinder was proper under RICO, severance was not required due to lack of demonstrated prejudice, the seating arrangement was not an abuse of discretion, and jury instructions adequately addressed the issues.
• United States v. Chinchic
  655 F.2d 547· 4th Cir.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 20×
  The joinder of defendants was authorized under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) because they participated in the same series of acts or transactions constituting offenses.
• United States v. Ayres
  434 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and the substantive counts, and that the denial of severance motions and admission of evidence concerning unindicted stolen vehicles were not erroneous.