Joinder Of Defendants

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

• United States v. Robinson
  774 F.2d 261· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance and a new trial, and that the government did not violate a plea agreement.
• 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. Jones
  880 F.2d 55· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the admission of prior convictions and bad acts was proper, the denial of reopening evidence was within the trial court's discretion, joinder and severance of charges and defendants were appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• 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. Gill
  490 F.2d 233· 7th Cir.· 1973-12-28 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed convictions for extortion and perjury, finding that the Hobbs Act's interstate commerce requirement was met, the evidence supported extortion over bribery, joinder of counts was proper, and jury instructions were not prejudicial.
• 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.
• United States v. Manner
  887 F.2d 317· D.C. Cir.· 1989-10-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Leeper's later drug sale without an on-record balancing of its probative value against its prejudicial effect, remanding for this determination. The court affirmed the denial of Manner's motion to sever and his mo
• 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.
• United States v. del Purgatorio
  411 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1969-05-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of conviction for conspiracy and that the trial court properly admitted challenged testimony and conducted a joint trial.
• 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.
• Robinson v. United States
  210 F.2d 29· D.C. Cir.· 1954-01-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a severance, nor in admitting evidence with proper jury instructions.
• United States v. Ira Harvey Liss
  265 F.3d 1220· 11th Cir.· 2001-09-21 ·cited 37×
  Ira Harvey Liss and Michael Spuza, physicians, were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and receiving remuneration in return for Medicare referrals under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1) after they accepted kickbacks disguised as consulting agreements and other payment
• United States v. Liss
  137 F.2d 995· 2d Cir.· 1943-05-28 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge argues that the conviction of defendants other than Liss and Conte should be reversed due to a fundamentally unfair trial. The judge contends that the jury was likely confused by a misleading indictment charging one conspiracy when evidence showed three disti
• 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. Rogers
  475 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that markings on money orders were sufficient to infer interstate movement and that compelling handwriting exemplars in specific forms did not violate constitutional rights. The court also found that a witness's Fifth Amendment refusals did not unduly prejudice the
• 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. 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.
• United States v. Kaplan
  588 F.2d 71· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that joinder of a defendant in an indictment covering offenses in which he did not participate is improper, and severance is mandatory. It also held that imposing consecutive maximum sentences for both possession and manufacture of an illegal firearm constitutes un
• United States v. Scott
  511 F.2d 15· 8th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions and admitting challenged evidence, affirming the conviction.
• 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. Garcia
  848 F.2d 1324· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge believes that permitting magistrates to conduct jury voir dire in felony cases raises serious constitutional questions and should be prohibited by supervisory power.
• United States v. Toro
  840 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court properly submitted the entrapment defense to the jury.
• 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. Catino
  403 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1968-11-19 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting evidence, or denying the right to proceed pro se.
• 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. Falcon
  766 F.2d 1469· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the search and seizure of evidence from Falcon's brother's apartment was lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and Jordan's confession was voluntary. The court affirmed the convictions.
• 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.
• Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
  886 So. 2d 197· Fla.· 2004-10-07 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure pursuant to its rule-making authority, including new procedures for juror interviews, enhanced protections for defendants in joint representation situations, and clarifications regarding speed
• 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. Scalzitti
  578 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the requirement of a unanimous verdict in federal criminal trials is indispensable and cannot be waived by the parties, even if the defendants attempt to do so.
• 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.