Joinder Of Defendants

245 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Butler v. United States
  317 F.2d 249· 8th Cir.· 1963-05-10 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting closing argument time, denying a defendant's request to represent himself, and in its handling of substitute counsel during the trial. The indictment was also found sufficient.
• Mellor v. United States
  160 F.2d 757· 8th Cir.· 1947-04-10 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the government's arguments were not prejudicial misconduct.
• United States v. Marszalkowski
  669 F.2d 655· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in suppressing evidence obtained during the initial search, finding the warrantless entry constitutional under existing law. It also affirmed the convictions of Bennett and Marszalkowski.
• 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. Cooper
  464 F.2d 648· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 78×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts and rejecting numerous procedural and evidentiary challenges raised by the appellants.
• United States v. Wagner
  884 F.2d 1090· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-08 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the evidence seized was not subject to suppression, the jury instructions were adequate, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the sentencing guidelines were correctly applied. The court also found no reversible error in the prosecutor's
• United States v. Donaway
  447 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-27 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion to sever the defendant, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant was engaged in a business enterprise involving gambling offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1952.
• United States v. Morales
  868 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the initial joinder of defendants in the indictment was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the denial of severance motions under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion, as no compelling prejudice was demonstrated.
• 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. 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. Greer
  467 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-18 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks were invited by the defense counsel's statements and did not exceed the bounds of that invitation.
• United States v. Adler
  879 F.2d 491· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the jury instructions fairly and adequately covered the issues, sufficient evidence supported the conviction for unlawful use of a communications facility, and the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• 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.
• Fernandez v. United States
  329 F.2d 899· 9th Cir.· 1964-03-26 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for mistrial, severance, or in admitting certain evidence, but reversed convictions on the conspiracy count due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Campbell
  706 F.2d 1138· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the 266-day delay from indictment to trial did not violate the Speedy Trial Act because various pretrial motions and the joinder with co-defendants justified time exclusions.
• 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. Hartley E. Greenleaf, Jr.
  692 F.2d 182· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for mail fraud and RICO were not clearly and grossly unjust, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or in its jury instructions. Consecutive sentences for RICO and mail fraud were permissible.
• United States v. Nickerson
  669 F.2d 1016· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the improper bolstering of a key witness's credibility and the erroneous jury instruction on conspiracy proof constituted reversible error.
• 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.
• Norbert D. Terlikowski v. United States
  379 F.2d 501· 8th Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various claims regarding speedy trial, due process, severance, removal from state custody, and the right to subpoena witnesses were without merit.
• 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. 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. Davis
  882 F.2d 1334· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the search of the vehicle was a lawful inventory search, joinder and severance were proper, jury instructions were appropriate, evidence was admissible, and the wiretap was lawful.
• 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. Branker
  395 F.2d 881· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-13 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the convictions of Branker, Lopez, Moore, and Ross should be affirmed, as no prejudice resulted from the joint trial.
• 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. Garza
  664 F.2d 135· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for change of venue, additional juror challenges, severance, and in its evidentiary and jury instruction rulings, and that statements made by a defendant in the hospital were voluntary and admissi
• 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. E. M. "Mike" Riebold and Donald T. Morgan
  557 F.2d 697· 10th Cir.· 1977-05-25 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuances, refusing to grant a mistrial, allowing jurors to take notes, or in its joinder of counts and defendants. The defendants' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected.
• 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. Heriberto Diaz
  876 F.2d 1344· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of a government informant, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. RAS
  713 F.2d 311· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence established a single conspiracy, joinder was proper, and the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Behrens
  689 F.2d 154· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to distribute narcotics were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding evidence, indictment, severance, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Heck
  499 F.2d 778· 9th Cir.· 1974-01-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any defendant forcibly attempted to rescue seized property, reversing convictions on those counts. However, the court found sufficient evidence for conspiracy to assault and for substantiv
• 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.
• 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. Godel
  361 F.2d 21· 4th Cir.· 1966-05-20 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy and filing a false statement, and that the trial judge's actions and the sentences imposed were not grounds for reversal.
• 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.