Joinder Of Defendants

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

• United States v. Braico
  422 F.2d 543· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the conspiracy conviction must be reversed due to insufficient proof, the convictions on the substantive counts are affirmed because the evidence was overwhelming and the joinder of defendants was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Scott
  413 F.2d 932· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-28 ·cited 24×
  Joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) because their actions constituted a series of transactions part of a common plan, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance under Rule 14 as no prejudice was shown.
• Scheve v. United States
  184 F.2d 695· D.C. Cir.· 1950-08-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for separate trials, as the offenses and defendants were properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and no prejudice resulted.
• United States v. Biaggi
  909 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed some convictions while reversing others, finding that while the distinction between bribes and political contributions can be blurred, the risk of mischaracterization did not deny defendants' rights in all instances. Joinder of certain counts was deemed proper
• United States v. Thornberg
  844 F.2d 573· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendants' severance motions were properly handled, and other arguments regarding evidence, jury instructions, and preindictment delay lacked merit.
• United States v. Ellender
  947 F.2d 748· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed most convictions, finding no reversible error in severance, indictment sufficiency, discovery, or prosecutorial misconduct claims, but remanded one defendant's double jeopardy claim.
• United States v. Sabatino
  943 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, that evidentiary rulings were proper or harmless, and that sentencing adjustments for obstruction of justice and leading role were appropriate, but vacated
• United States v. Willis
  940 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper and the district court did not err in enhancing the offense level for obstruction of justice or denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
• United States v. Mendoza
  876 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that Mendoza's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, the mandatory minimum penalties were constitutional, the evidence supported a single conspiracy, severance was not warranted, and any error in admitting other crime
• United States v. Stern
  858 F.2d 1241· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions correctly stated the law regarding the burden of proof for RICO conspiracy and Travel Act violations, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and forfeiture.
• United States v. Dounias
  777 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) because the conspiracy charge was brought in good faith, and severance was not required under Rule 14 as the appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. The evidence was also sufficient to support the
• United States v. Cannington
  729 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on joinder, severance, co-conspirator statements, identification, discovery, prosecutorial comment, or sentencing.
• United States v. Wright
  564 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of a mistrial, the search of a home based on a mother's consent, the limitation of cross-examination regarding a witness's alleged prostitution charge, and the denial of recalling a witness for further cross-examination were not prejudicial errors.
• United States v. Pacente
  490 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1973-12-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for severance, as the joinder of the extortion and false declaration counts created undue prejudice.
• United States v. Eldon Wayne McKUIN
  434 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, the limitation on cross-examination was not prejudicial, and the witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege did not warrant a mistrial.
• Morgan v. United States
  380 F.2d 686· 9th Cir.· 1967-06-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's numerous procedural and substantive claims of error were without merit, affirming his convictions.
• United States v. Manfredi
  275 F.2d 588· 2d Cir.· 1960-03-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of both defendants and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or rulings.
• United States v. Tuffanelli
  131 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-09 ·cited 22×
  The court should reverse the judgment on substantive counts due to misjoinder of offenses.
• United States v. Nell Scott
  784 F.2d 787· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the evidence was sufficient to convict, and there was no grand jury abuse or spousal immunity violation. The district court did not err in excluding evidence of irregular financial management.
• United States v. Perry
  731 F.2d 985· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joint trial of both defendants was proper under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8(b) and 14, and that other claims of error were without merit.
• Aristides MacHado v. State
  431 So. 2d 337· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-05-18 ·cited 20×
  Aristides Machado appeals his conviction for burglary and grand theft following a nolo contendere plea, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for discharge based on violation of the speedy trial rule. The court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked an authori
• United States v. Novia Turkette, Jr.
  656 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that joinder was proper under RICO, severance was not required due to lack of demonstrated prejudice, the seating arrangement was not an abuse of discretion, and jury instructions adequately addressed the issues.
• United States v. Chinchic
  655 F.2d 547· 4th Cir.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 20×
  The joinder of defendants was authorized under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) because they participated in the same series of acts or transactions constituting offenses.
• United States v. Ted Banks & Don Adams
  465 F.2d 1235· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause, the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Wentz
  456 F.2d 634· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joinder of counts and defendants was proper, the judge's judicial notice of a geographical fact was harmless error, evidence of a second shipment was admissible even after a co-conspirator's arrest, and the refusal of a requested jury instruction was also
• United States v. Wozniak
  781 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on multiple conspiracies, as the jury could convict on a variant of the charged crime, and the evidence supported the single conspiracy charged.
• Tifford v. State
  334 So. 2d 91· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-05-25 ·cited 18×
  Arthur Tifford was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit accessory after the fact and being an accessory after the fact to grand larceny, forgery, and uttering forged instruments. On appeal, Tifford challenged the trial court's denial of his motions for severance from co-defe
• United States v. Fairchild
  435 F.2d 972· 10th Cir.· 1970-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for continuance, severance, or election between counts, nor in its handling of defendant statements or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Ayres
  434 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and the substantive counts, and that the denial of severance motions and admission of evidence concerning unindicted stolen vehicles were not erroneous.
• United States v. Uccio
  917 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-15 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to correct an erroneous sentence and that the upward departure for Uccio's sentencing required reconsideration. The court affirmed Sarantopoulos's conviction, finding his severance motion was properly denied.
• United States v. COX
  934 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the joinder of offenses was proper, the evidence was sufficient, and the sentencing calculations were largely correct.
• United States v. Helms
  897 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that post-payment mailings can further a mail fraud scheme if used to lull victims, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on jury instructions, juror substitution, or sentencing.
• United States v. Nevils
  897 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while a multiple conspiracy instruction should have been given, its absence did not substantially prejudice the defendants, and other claims of error lacked merit.
• Apolinari v. The Honorable Ray E. Ulmer, Jr.
  483 So. 2d 75· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-02-05 ·cited 16×
  A writ of prohibition is granted because the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for discharge, as speedy trial rights were violated by improper continuances and joinder.
• United States v. Williams
  711 F.2d 748· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying severance, the speedy trial right was not violated, and the admission of grand jury testimony did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Jones
  578 F.2d 1332· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance, admitting certain evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Phillips v. United States
  406 F.2d 599· 10th Cir.· 1969-01-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that entries made to represent fictitious loans or loans to straw-men, even if other bank records might reveal the true nature of the transaction, constitute false entries under 18 U.S.C. § 1005 when made with intent to deceive, and that the indictment was sufficie
• United States v. Goss
  329 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1964-03-05 ·cited 16×
  A variance between a single conspiracy charged in the indictment and proof of multiple, disconnected conspiracies is a fundamental and fatal error that vitiates convictions.
• Dist. of Columbia v. Hunt
  163 F.2d 833· D.C. Cir.· 1947-05-05 ·cited 16×
  Consolidation of informations for trial is improper if the alleged acts or transactions are not the same, as the rule requires the possibility of joinder, which is conditioned on participation in the same act or series of acts.
• United States v. Eufrasio
  935 F.2d 553· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the murder conspiracy predicate was properly charged against Idone as it was legally related to the gambling and extortion predicates, forming a single pattern of racketeering activity for RICO purposes. The court also affirmed the convictions of Eufrasio and
• United States v. Isidro Moreno (90-5832)
  933 F.2d 362· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for mistrial based on jury exposure to defendants' custodial status, nor in denying motions for severance or continuance, and that the government could cross-examine a defendant on prior incons
• United States v. Benitez
  920 F.2d 1080· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of redacted codefendant statements, the denial of severance, and the sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Parson
  452 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a last-minute motion to sever, as it was untimely and waived, and that the joint trial did not prejudice the appellant.
• United States v. Pullings
  321 F.2d 287· 7th Cir.· 1963-07-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the consolidation of indictments for trial was proper, and the admission of electronic eavesdropping evidence was not error. The destruction of exhibits did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Turoff
  853 F.2d 1037· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that mail fraud and tax fraud charges could be properly joined in a single indictment against multiple defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) because the schemes were part of a series of interconnected transactions and the proof of one was indispensable to understandi
• United States v. Chavis
  772 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the mail fraud convictions, finding that any errors in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions were harmless.
• United States v. Carey
  746 F.2d 228· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the joinder of multiple offenses in a single indictment is analogous to the joinder of defendants, and a reasonable delay for one count should apply to all counts for Speedy Trial Act purposes.
• Dean v. State
  430 So. 2d 491· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-04-05 ·cited 12×
  Nathaniel Dean appealed his convictions for conspiracy and grand larceny, raising four contentions. The Third District Court of Appeal rejected all arguments and affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings regarding closing arguments, joinde
• United States v. Rogers
  652 F.2d 972· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, severance was not required, and co-defendant statements were admissible, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Brooks
  567 F.2d 134· D.C. Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in its voir dire, refusal of an entrapment instruction, denial of severance, or admission of a videotaped statement.