Former Testimony

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

• Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
  776 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the cases for trial and in admitting evidence regarding appellants' knowledge of asbestos risks, but ordered remittiturs for future medical expenses awarded by the jury.
• United States v. Hines
  470 F.2d 225· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 52×
  References to pre-trial photographic identifications used to bolster in-court identifications are admissible, even if they might suggest a prior criminal record, as their probative value outweighs the speculative prejudice. Ineffective assistance of counsel was not demonstrated.
• Marquard v. State
  850 So. 2d 417· Fla.· 2002-11-21 ·cited 51×
  John Marquard, sentenced to death for the premeditated murder of Stacey Willets, challenges his conviction and sentence through a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion and habeas corpus petition. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial of postconviction relief and r
• United States v. King
  713 F.2d 627· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that prior trial testimony of a deceased witness, admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), should not be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 solely because the jury cannot observe the witness's demeanor, especially when the testimony is essentia
• United States v. Atkins
  618 F.2d 366· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the record evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
  782 F.2d 1156· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the trial court's rulings, finding no error in evidentiary exclusions, jury instructions, or directed verdicts based on insufficient evidence of causation.
• United States v. Poland
  659 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that even if the trial judge's conduct was improper, it did not significantly prejudice the defendants given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Feldman
  761 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-01 ·cited 34×
  The admission of a civil deposition in a criminal trial violates the Confrontation Clause and Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) if the defendant lacked a meaningful opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine the deponent, and the trial also violated the Speedy Trial Act by commencing le
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Glickman
  450 F.2d 416· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-28 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the United States and the FDIC are not the same person for the purpose of applying a hearsay exception, and that a co-maker's discharge from liability is irrelevant to the appellant's liability on a promissory note.
• United States v. Fernandez
  892 F.2d 976· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of interaction between defendants concerning a common illegal object to support a single conspiracy trial.
• Barker v. Morris
  761 F.2d 1396· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 28×
  The admission of sworn, videotaped testimony from a deceased eyewitness did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the testimony was necessary and possessed particular guarantees of trustworthiness.
• In re the Complaint of Paducah Towing Co., Inc. v. Paducah Towing Co., Inc.
  692 F.2d 412· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony and factual findings without proper foundation, and that the Endeavour's crew was also negligent, contributing to the accident.
• Lloyd v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc.
  580 F.2d 1179· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence of a Coast Guard hearing examiner's findings and a Japanese conviction, as these were admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(1) and 803(22) respectively. Therefore, a new trial is warranted.
• Jenkins v. State
  803 So. 2d 783· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-11-30 ·cited 25×
  Jenkins appeals his civil commitment under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the admission of extensive hearsay evidence that denied him due process and his right to confront witnesses. The court reverses, holding that committing Jenkins largely on untested hearsay—including
• Leota A. DeLURYEA v. Winthrop Labs.
  697 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition of a deceased treating physician, as it was admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) and its exclusion substantially prejudiced the defendant.
• United States v. Powell
  894 F.2d 895· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that two counts of conspiracy to distribute different drugs were multiplicitous, requiring vacation of one conviction and resentencing. The court also held that the conviction for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime was not a violation of double jeopard
• John Ed Clay and wife v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  722 F.2d 1289· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the 1979 amendment to Tennessee's statute of limitations, excluding asbestos cases, applies and is not barred by the vested rights doctrine, and that a deceased witness's deposition may be admissible under the 'predecessor in interest' standard. The court also
• Oberlin v. The Marlin Am. Corp. (formerly The Marlin Corporation)
  596 F.2d 1322· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish an agency relationship between the manufacturer/distributor and the defendants, and that the exclusion of certain deposition testimony was proper.
• United States v. Mathis
  550 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting prior testimony of an unavailable witness and in using a witness's statement from a guilty plea for impeachment.
• Merrill Jackson v. State
  453 So. 2d 456· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-13 ·cited 16×
  Merrill Jackson was convicted of second-degree murder in the fatal stabbing of Jake Robinson and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor's comments during voir dire regarding Jackson's
• Murphy v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
  779 F.2d 340· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict, excluding deposition testimony, or in its jury instructions.
• Murray v. Toyota Motor Distribs., Inc.
  664 F.2d 1377· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding affiliated corporations being incapable of conspiracy as a matter of law was improper, and that a directed verdict on the definition of 'manufacturer' under the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act was also error.
• Allstate Ins. Co. & Kenneth Vassar v. Greyhound Rent-A-Car, Inc.
  586 So. 2d 482· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-09-25 ·cited 8×
• State v. Mosley
  760 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-07-07 ·cited 5×
  The State of Florida sought certiorari review to overturn pretrial orders excluding evidence in a first-degree murder retrial. The trial court had excluded evidence of collateral crimes committed in Wakulla County and the defendant's former testimony from his first trial. The app
• Risto Jovan Wyatt v. State
  183 So. 3d 1081· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-05-20 ·cited 4×
  Risto Jovan Wyatt appeals his conviction for trafficking cocaine and perjury. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred in excluding exculpatory testimony from a witness that was admissible under the former testimony h
• Mutuelles Unies v. Kroll & Linstrom
  957 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper, jury instructions were appropriate, and the admission of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion, affirming the jury verdict and pre-judgment interest award.
• Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's rulings, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and granted Plaintiff's motion for damages, awarding $19,361,057.00.
• Mueller v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-07
  Robert Mueller, convicted of attempted second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and discharging a firearm in public, sought federal habeas relief challenging his forty-year prison sentence. The court denied his petition, finding that several claims were procedurally barred becau
• Keefer v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-03-26
  The court held that deposition testimony from a prior related litigation is admissible in the current litigation, overruling defendants' hearsay objections.
• United States v. Dent
  984 F.2d 1453· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that grand jury testimony, even if trustworthy, cannot be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 804(b)(5)) if it is specifically covered by another exception (Rule 804(b)(1)) and fails to meet that exception's requirements.
• O'Banion v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & the Celotex Corp.
  968 F.2d 1011· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-30
  The court held that the exclusion of cancer evidence was proper without a showing of reasonable medical probability, and while admitting former testimony without a finding of unavailability was an abuse of discretion, it was not prejudicial. The state of the art jury instruction
• United States v. Collin Taplin, Jr.
  954 F.2d 1256· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-29
  The court held that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness whose prior testimony was admitted, and therefore, admitting the testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Whitlock
  785 F.2d 1335· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-04
  The court held that the district court improperly granted a sua sponte directed verdict against SIC before SIC had fully presented its case, requiring vacation and remand. The court affirmed the dismissal of SIC's cross-claim against Whitlock.