664 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 839 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
420 F.2d 616·
D.C. Cir.·
1969-11-28
·cited 44×
The court held that while the officers may not have had probable cause for arrest initially, their actions were justified by reasonable suspicion for investigation and subsequent discovery of evidence.
-
385 F.2d 13·
8th Cir.·
1967-10-24
·cited 44×
A surety's liability is joint and several, allowing suit against the surety alone even if the principal is not formally found liable in the same action. The method of calculating damages based on actual extra costs incurred due to the breach is permissible if reasonable.
-
312 F.2d 655·
8th Cir.·
1963-02-04
·cited 44×
-
The court held that the appellant waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to renew his motion for acquittal after presenting his own evidence, and that other alleged errors were either not properly preserved for appeal or lacked merit.
-
The court held that the trial judge's comments on the evidence were impermissibly argumentative and prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal.
-
517 So. 2d 656·
Fla.·
1987-09-03
·cited 43×
Florida Supreme Court granted habeas corpus relief to a death row inmate, Wardell Riley, finding that his 1976 jury sentencing recommendation violated Lockett v. Ohio because the jury was improperly restricted to considering only statutory mitigating factors rather than all relev
-
The court held that the disputed contract provision is susceptible to a lawful interpretation by an arbitrator, and therefore the employer must arbitrate the dispute. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the employer's motions to dismiss.
-
The court held that the use of prior witness statements was harmless error, the safety expert's testimony was admissible, and the jury's award of damages for willful refusal of maintenance and cure was supported by evidence. However, the award of maintenance and cure beyond the d
-
693 F.2d 183·
D.C. Cir.·
1982-11-09
·cited 43×
The court held that while the admission of certain claim forms into evidence was error, it was harmless error, and the defendant's other arguments regarding the indictment and jury instructions lacked merit.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no plain error in the reasonable doubt instruction and that the entrapment and Sixth Amendment instructions were adequate.
-
497 So. 2d 253·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1985-12-10
·cited 42×
John Carroll was convicted of third-degree murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery based largely on testimony from a witness with a learning disability whose credibility was bolstered by a detective's recitation of the witness's prior consistent statement. The Florida appellate
-
The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's subsequent extortion attempt was reversible error because it was highly prejudicial and of slight probative value.
-
Attorneys are entitled to notice and an opportunity for a hearing before sanctions are imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
-
The court held that the mailings of invoices and warrants were sufficiently related to the scheme to defraud to support mail fraud convictions, and that the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and the prosecutor's remarks did not constitute reversible error.
-
620 F.2d 559·
5th Cir.·
1980-07-03
·cited 42×
The court held that the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's attorney being present during the search of his home impermissibly penalized the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and constituted reversible error.
-
477 F.2d 626·
5th Cir.·
1973-04-16
·cited 42×
The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to conduct a gambling business and to obstruct law enforcement were supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial errors were harmless.
-
463 F.2d 491·
2d Cir.·
1972-06-29
·cited 42×
The court held that the trial judge's private communications with the jury, particularly the erroneous instruction on leniency, violated the defendant's right to be present and prejudiced the verdict, requiring reversal.
-
449 F.2d 1281·
5th Cir.·
1971-10-27
·cited 42×
The court held that a potentially prejudicial remark by an agent was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
389 F.2d 684·
5th Cir.·
1968-01-12
·cited 42×
The court held that the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination regarding the details of a pretrial police lineup identification, and this error was not harmless.
-
167 F.2d 431·
9th Cir.·
1948-03-31
·cited 42×
The admission of evidence of prior independent crimes, unrelated to the tax evasion charge, was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
-
Lewis Edward Johnson, Jr., a 17-year-old transferred to adult criminal court, was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to adult sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence because the trial court failed to comply with newly amended statuto
-
523 F.2d 316·
10th Cir.·
1975-08-18
·cited 41×
The court held that the defendant was not entitled to twenty peremptory challenges because the government waived the possibility of capital punishment, and that other trial errors were harmless or not an abuse of discretion.
-
800 So. 2d 747·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2001-12-14
·cited 40×
Norman Moore appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial following his conviction for sexual battery on a physically helpless person. The court reversed, holding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by testing sufficiency of the evidence rather than the w
-
The court agrees that out-of-court statements made by co-conspirators after arrest should be admissible, questioning the continued vitality of the Krulewitch rule.
-
633 F.2d 851·
9th Cir.·
1980-12-08
·cited 40×
The court held that the jury's consideration of extrinsic evidence requires application of the 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, not a lesser standard, for constitutional error.
-
596 F.2d 391·
9th Cir.·
1979-05-07
·cited 40×
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, distinguishing the case from precedent where counsel's specific trial actions were at issue.
-
556 F.2d 371·
6th Cir.·
1977-05-20
·cited 40×
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction and that various evidentiary and procedural rulings by the trial court were not grounds for reversal.
-
534 F.2d 31·
3d Cir.·
1976-03-29
·cited 40×
The mailing of vouchers to credit card companies by merchants who knew the credit card users were using stolen cards is sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to violate the mail fraud statute.
-
The court held that while a jury instruction on the burden of proof for intoxication was erroneous, it did not affect substantial rights and was harmless error when considered with the entire charge and evidence.
-
The court held that the admission of evidence was proper and that prosecutorial remarks, while intemperate, did not prejudice the defendant, thus affirming the conviction.
-
424 F.2d 799·
D.C. Cir.·
1969-12-18
·cited 40×
The court held that the trial judge's finding of an independent source for the in-court identification was not supported by the facts, and the identification should have been excluded.
-
420 F.2d 142·
D.C. Cir.·
1969-11-18
·cited 40×
An erroneous jury instruction that effectively directs a guilty verdict if the jury finds the defendant was present at the scene of the crime is reversible error, as it infringes upon the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
-
347 F.2d 33·
3d Cir.·
1965-06-21
·cited 40×
The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated a conspiracy charge and that the admission of certain co-conspirator statements, even if potentially hearsay, constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence.
-
The court held that the jury instruction on intent was erroneous and that the indictment was also deficient, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the unrecorded oral arguments, and therefore, a remand for further proceedings was not warranted.
-
179 F.2d 227·
7th Cir.·
1950-01-12
·cited 40×
The court held that the admission of evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, along with erroneous jury instructions and prejudicial testimony, constituted reversible error.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no abuse of the writ, no incompetence to stand trial, no denial of choice of counsel, no ineffective assistance of counsel, no improper Faretta inquiry, no constitutional issue regarding the race of t
-
785 F.2d 682·
9th Cir.·
1986-03-18
·cited 39×
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Due Process rights are violated when their attorney is disbarred and fails to inform the client or the court of this fact, and the defendant is denied presence at an in camera discussion of the matter.
-
-
The Florida Supreme Court held that a victim's testimonial statement identifying the defendant as possessing a firearm violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, and that a discovery deposition conducted by defense counsel does not
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit in claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, improper prosecutorial arguments, or burden of proof shifting.
-
The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if Hitchcock error was harmless, and thus, a remand for an evidentiary hearing was necessary.
-
825 F.2d 1317·
9th Cir.·
1987-08-19
·cited 38×
The court held that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, affecting fundamental fairness, could be raised on appeal after conviction, distinguishing it from technical errors addressed by Mechanik.
-
716 F.2d 850·
11th Cir.·
1983-10-03
·cited 38×
The court held that the harmless error rule does not apply to the procedural requirements for imposing enhanced sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 851, and failure to comply with these requirements deprives the court of jurisdiction to impose such a sentence.
-
The use of prior uncounseled felony convictions to impeach a defendant's credibility, when those convictions are constitutionally invalid, constitutes a due process violation that is not harmless error if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence influenced the jury's a
-
The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
-
518 F.2d 955·
2d Cir.·
1975-07-08
·cited 38×
The court held that while excluding counsel during the reading of grand jury minutes was an error, it did not require reversal because the appellant's refusal to testify was unconditional and the error was harmless under the specific facts.
-
472 F.2d 229·
3d Cir.·
1973-01-16
·cited 38×
The court held that the trial court's failure to adequately protect the jury from prejudicial newspaper publicity violated due process, requiring a new trial.
-
376 F.2d 717·
7th Cir.·
1967-05-01
·cited 38×
The court held that a defendant's absence during jury communication, while a procedural impropriety, does not automatically require reversal if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
313 F.2d 809·
5th Cir.·
1963-02-06
·cited 38×
The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion erred in reversing the judgment based on a procedural ruling that did not affect the substantial rights of the parties.