Indictment Validity

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

• The United States v. Honorable W. Harold COX
  342 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1965-01-26 ·cited 268×
  The court held that a United States Attorney's signature is essential to the validity of an indictment and that the decision to sign or withhold a signature is an executive discretionary power that courts cannot coerce.
• United States v. Polizzi
  500 F.2d 856· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-30 ·cited 232×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the appellants' conduct violated the federal Travel Act by engaging in a business enterprise involving gambling offenses under Nevada law, specifically by failing to disclose hidden interests in a licensed gambling operation to sta
• United States v. Calvert
  523 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-25 ·cited 130×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy, finding no merit in his challenges to the prosecution's authority, publicity, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Perkins
  748 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 112×
  The court held that juror misconduct, specifically regarding a juror's undisclosed involvement in prior legal proceedings and knowledge of the defendant, warranted a new trial.
• United States v. Computer Scis. Corp.
  689 F.2d 1181· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-16 ·cited 95×
  The court held that dismissals of indictments based on minor, non-prejudicial grand jury intrusions and the preemption of mail/wire fraud by the false claims statute were erroneous.
• United States v. Rivera-Santiago
  872 F.2d 1073· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy to possess and distribute marihuana, and affirmed the convictions. The court also found that the trial court's refusal to give a specific cautionary instruction was not reversible error.
• United States v. DiMURO
  540 F.2d 503· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-29 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the exchange of gambling information and lay-off bets established a single illegal gambling business, wiretap authorizations were proper, and voice identifications and searches were lawful.
• Jones v. United States
  342 F.2d 863· D.C. Cir.· 1964-07-16 ·cited 64×
  Confessions obtained during illegal detention are inadmissible, and indictments obtained in violation of constitutional rights, including the right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination, must be dismissed.
• Stillman v. United States
  177 F.2d 607· 9th Cir.· 1949-10-27 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a typographical error in an indictment's caption does not vitiate it, and that references to the Emergency Price Control Act, as amended, and its regulations were sufficient to inform defendants of the charges, even if the indictment omitted the words 'As amen
• Coleman v. United States
  295 F.2d 555· D.C. Cir.· 1961-09-08 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the jury should have been instructed on second-degree murder as a lesser included offense because there was evidence that the robbery had terminated before the homicide occurred.
• United States v. Sullivan
  578 F.2d 121· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 47×
• United States ex rel. McCANN v. Thompson
  144 F.2d 604· 2d Cir.· 1944-07-19 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the relator's objections regarding grand jury composition and juror absences were procedurally barred and lacked merit.
• Elmo T. Christianson and Herman Paster v. United States
  226 F.2d 646· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-01 ·cited 41×
  The court held that evidence of pre-effective date conspiracy arrangements is admissible to prove a post-effective date unlawful conspiracy, and corporate records are not protected by an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege.
• Laughlin v. United States
  385 F.2d 287· D.C. Cir.· 1967-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in its jury instructions, and that the grand jury proceedings were not sufficiently tainted to warrant dismissal of the indictment.
• United States v. Tham
  665 F.2d 855· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district judge did not err in jury instructions, refusing to disclose a confidential informant's identity, or in handling allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. The court affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Sutton
  732 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice were supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial court rulings did not constitute an abuse of discretion or reversible error.
• Reyes v. United States
  417 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant's arrest and the seizure of money incident to it were lawful, and that statements made by an informant and a co-conspirator were admissible.
• State v. Sullivan
  43 So. 2d 438· Fla.· 1949-12-20 ·cited 28×
  Jeffie L. McClure challenges her murder indictment on grounds that the 18-member grand jury that indicted her was discharged by operation of law when Florida enacted Chapter 25554 requiring large counties to use 23-member grand juries. The Florida Supreme Court holds the indictme
• United States v. Garnes
  258 F.2d 530· 2d Cir.· 1958-08-08 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the search was lawful as incident to a valid arrest, the indictment was not invalid due to the use of potentially involuntary testimony, and the defendant received a fair trial.
• United States v. Rowena Owen Garner
  663 F.2d 834· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to proceed with the trial because the pretrial notice of appeal was from a non-appealable order, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• United States v. Eddy
  549 F.2d 108· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the Attorney General's republication of controlled substance schedules was adequate, and Eddy's arrest and the government's discovery practices did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Roth
  777 F.2d 1200· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant dismissal of the indictment and that there was sufficient evidence for admitting extrajudicial statements.
• Crutchfield v. United States
  142 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1943-04-02 ·cited 24×
  This is a dissent and a motion for en banc review, not a final holding on the merits of the underlying case.
• United States v. Smith
  543 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his car and voluntarily made his statement after being informed of his Miranda rights, making the evidence admissible.
• United States v. Arrabondo
  483 F.2d 980· 8th Cir.· 1973-09-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial was free of prejudicial error, affirming the defendant's convictions.
• United States v. Anthony G. "Amos" Amadio
  215 F.2d 605· 7th Cir.· 1954-08-30 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that the defendant did not receive a fair trial due to numerous prejudicial errors.
• Humphrey v. Lynaugh
  861 F.2d 875· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 20×
  A defect in an Ohio indictment, such as the grand jury foreman failing to sign it, does not deprive the Ohio court of jurisdiction, and therefore, a Texas court may use such a conviction for sentence enhancement.
• Morton v. Welch
  162 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1947-06-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that alleged errors during a criminal trial, including issues with the indictment, jury selection, and trial counsel, do not constitute a gross violation of constitutional rights sufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Gordon
  641 F.2d 1281· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a variance between the statute cited in the indictment and the statute used for conviction is not fatal if the indictment sufficiently charges an offense and the defendant is not prejudiced. The classification of a public official under a statute is a question
• United States v. Helstoski
  635 F.2d 200· 3d Cir.· 1980-11-03 ·cited 18×
  An indictment based on evidence presented to a grand jury that violates the Speech or Debate Clause is invalid and must be dismissed.
• United States v. Hyder
  732 F.2d 841· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 17×
  The Fifth Amendment does not require the prosecution to disclose information about a prior state prosecution or the government's Petite policy to the grand jury when presenting a charge previously handled by the state.
• Infelice v. United States
  528 F.2d 204· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 16×
  A letter of authority for a special attorney to investigate and prosecute is not invalid for being overly broad under 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), even if it does not specify all statutes or individuals involved.
• Martin v. United States
  335 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1964-08-19 ·cited 16×
  An indictment regular on its face, returned by a legally constituted grand jury, is presumed to be founded on competent evidence, and a defendant's showing of lack of evidence before the grand jury is insufficient to overcome this presumption. The court also found that the jury w
• Dobson v. State
  434 So. 2d 332· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-06-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Count II of the indictment was void because it was not signed by the assistant state attorney, rendering the conviction for attempted armed robbery invalid. Count I, however, was valid.
• United States v. Riccobene
  451 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remark, while improper, did not rise to constitutional error and was not serious enough to invalidate the indictment, as there was sufficient competent evidence supporting it.
• Richardson v. State
  72 Fla. 154· Fla.· 1916-08-08 ·cited 14×
  May Belle Richardson was convicted of manslaughter after being indicted for murder in the first degree. She sought relief via writ of error, challenging the trial court's rulings on her plea in abatement regarding grand jury foreman irregularities, the form of the verdict, admiss
• United States v. Rabb
  680 F.2d 294· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 12×
  A timely indictment returned by a grand jury whose term has expired, if later superseded by an indictment from a valid grand jury and without prejudice to the defendant, satisfies the Speedy Trial Act's requirement for indictment within thirty days of arrest.
• Bugg v. United States
  140 F.2d 848· 8th Cir.· 1944-02-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked the power to vacate a sentence imposed nearly ten years prior, and that the sentence itself was valid.
• Evaporated Milk Ass'n v. Roche
  130 F.2d 843· 9th Cir.· 1942-09-12 ·cited 12×
  The court should not issue a writ of mandate to review the trial judge's ruling on pleas in abatement before a final judgment.
• Thompson v. Baker
  154 Fla. 303· Fla.· 1944-03-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an unnecessary affidavit cannot invalidate a valid indictment for extradition purposes.
• United States v. Malofsky
  388 F.2d 288· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-17 ·cited 10×
  An indictment based on hearsay testimony presented to the grand jury is valid.
• United States v. Wallace & Tiernan, Inc.
  349 F.2d 222· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment should not have been dismissed because any procedural irregularity in summoning the grand jury did not prejudice the appellees and Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure superseded the conflicting D.C. Code provision.
• Goodspeed v. Beto
  341 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1965-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that any illegality in extradition proceedings does not invalidate a subsequent conviction, and that the trial judge was not disqualified.
• United States v. Mitcheal Edmonson
  962 F.2d 1535· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions lacked merit, except for the issue concerning the fine under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which the government conceded. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Garrett
  797 F.2d 656· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an indictment returned by a grand jury that previously heard a defendant's immunized testimony on related matters requires an evidentiary hearing to determine if the indictment was based on evidence derived from legitimate independent sources, rather than the
• United States v. Jacobson
  691 F.2d 110· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) but remanded for a hearing on the validity of the indictment due to inaccuracies in the government's representations about grand jury proceedings.
• United States v. Labate
  270 F.2d 122· 3d Cir.· 1959-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the failure to record grand jury proceedings does not invalidate an indictment, especially when not raised by pre-trial motion.
• United States v. Kobert D. Golden
  239 F.2d 877· 2d Cir.· 1956-11-13 ·cited 8×
  The denial of appellant's motion was not an appealable final decision, and the concurrence believes the District Court had the power to decide the motion on its merits.
• MacDONALD v. United States
  136 F.2d 482· 8th Cir.· 1943-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The District Court was without power to grant the appellant's motion to vacate the judgment after the term of court expired.
• United States v. Carson
  969 F.2d 1480· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that some electronic surveillance tapes should have been suppressed due to delayed sealing, and others should be suppressed if the district court finds the sealing delay was not immediately executed and lacks a satisfactory, objectively reasonable explanation.