Joinder Of Defendants

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

• Scheel v. State
  350 So. 2d 1120· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-10-18 ·cited 12×
  Norman Louis Scheel and Ronald Gene Wettlaufer appealed their convictions for involuntary sexual battery and attempted involuntary sexual battery, respectively, raising five points of trial error. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions, finding no reversi
• United States v. O'Brien
  319 F.2d 437· 7th Cir.· 1963-07-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the denial of his motion for severance or by the prosecutor's comments regarding the 'syndicate,' and that the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Salerno
  485 F.2d 260· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendants were members of the overall conspiracy charged, and that the trial court's jury instructions were proper.
• Benbow v. Wolf
  217 F.2d 203· 9th Cir.· 1954-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a claim against a government employee is not ancillary to a claim against the United States under the Tort Claims Act without independent grounds for jurisdiction, such as diversity of citizenship.
• Riddle v. Colliver
  116 Fla. 723· Fla.· 1934-10-01 ·cited 10×
  L. H. Riddle and J. P. Cochrane were sued by F. B. Colliver to recover a deficiency on a mortgage debt. The trial court initially granted motions for new trial and arrest of judgment, but later vacated those orders and rendered final judgment against both defendants. The Florida
• United States v. Basil Robert Cervone
  907 F.2d 332· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed most convictions, reversing only certain labor bribery convictions, finding that the evidence was sufficient and joinder/severance rules were not violated.
• United States v. Glenwood M. Ford
  870 F.2d 729· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for severance because the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide need for the co-defendant's testimony, specifically its exculpatory nature and the likelihood of it being gi
• United States v. Portac, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants, the charges were properly joined, and no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Fischl
  797 F.2d 306· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a scheme to defraud for mail fraud purposes includes deceiving public officials and depriving them of information, even if the ultimate contractual performance is met.
• United States v. DeROBERTIS
  771 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to investigate a timely objection to joint representation based on conflicting defenses violated the Sixth Amendment, and that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's representation, warranting habeas corpus relief
• United States v. Green
  561 F.2d 423· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of evidence, including a handgun and a holdup note, was not an abuse of discretion and that the defendant waived any claim regarding improper joinder by failing to move for severance.
• United States v. Strand
  517 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to sever his trial from his co-defendant's.
• United States v. Burnley
  452 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that appellants waived their right to appeal the denial of their severance motion by failing to diligently pursue it below and that evidence admitted against one appellant was properly received.
• United States v. Northeast Texas Chapter
  181 F.2d 30· 5th Cir.· 1950-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated essential facts constituting an offense under the Sherman Act and that joinder of offenses and defendants was proper.
• United States v. Montanye
  962 F.2d 1332· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 7×
• United States v. Giorgio Piaget
  915 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to stop and search Piaget's car, that MDMA was properly scheduled as a controlled substance, and that severance was not required.
• United States v. Robin Rene Warner (90-3753)
  955 F.2d 441· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, and the trial judge's conduct was not prejudicial. The court also affirmed the drug quantity calculations used for sentencing.
• Williams v. United States
  218 F.2d 276· 4th Cir.· 1954-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction and that the joint trial was not an abuse of discretion. Claims of ineffective counsel and improper prosecution were also rejected.
• State ex rel. R. Whyte v. DeWitt T. Gray
  116 Fla. 510· Fla.· 1934-09-13 ·cited 6×
  This case concerns whether a circuit court can hear a case where the primary defendant's liability is within its jurisdiction, but an endorser's liability is limited to an amount typically handled by a lower civil court. The court held that the circuit court retains jurisdiction
• United States v. Foote
  920 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting the affidavit, or in sentencing the defendants, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Riley
  991 F.2d 120· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a deferred motion to suppress qualifies as a 'pretrial motion' for Speedy Trial Act purposes, and that joinder and sufficiency of evidence claims were without merit.
• United States v. Gutberlet
  939 F.2d 643· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, that the defendant lacked standing to suppress evidence seized from a co-arrestee, and that the jury instructions adequately covered the defense's theory.
• United States v. Youssef Saleh (88-1200)
  875 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-18 ·cited 4×
  The joint indictment and trial violated Rule 8(b) and prejudiced the defendants, requiring severance.
• United States v. Sazenski
  833 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1987-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions did not impermissibly amend the indictment, and any misjoinder of defendants was harmless error.
• United States v. Johnson
  763 F.2d 773· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the joinder of the mail fraud count against Rosemary Johnson with other counts against co-defendants was proper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) and 14, and that she failed to show sufficient prejudice to warrant severance.
• United States v. Lovejoy
  364 F.2d 586· 2d Cir.· 1966-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a co-defendant's incriminating statement, even if later found to be made by a juvenile, was properly admitted against the adult defendants with limiting instructions, and the discovery of the co-defendant's age post-trial did not invalidate the convictions.
• State of Del. v. Land
  24 P. 2· Del. Super. Ct.· 2018-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The Delaware Superior Court denied Maurice Land's motion for postconviction relief, finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective. The court determined that counsel's decision not to file a motion to sever the trial, not to move for a mistrial, and not to appeal the tamperin
• Fernandez v. State
  370 So. 2d 818· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-01 ·cited 2×
  Appellant's conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony and grand larceny through staged automobile accident fraud was affirmed; no Bruton error resulted from joinder, and admission of accident report was proper or harmless.
• United States v. Efronson
  505 F.2d 104· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to violate statutes proscribing counterfeit United States obligations.
• Barnes v. United States
  381 F.2d 263· D.C. Cir.· 1967-06-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants, denial of severance, and conviction for aiding and abetting were proper.
• Mese v. State
  824 So. 2d 908· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-06-19 ·cited 1×
  John Carl Mese appealed his conviction for RICO conspiracy and related crimes, arguing the trial court erred in denying severance motions and in admitting certain expert testimony. The appellate court reversed the trial court's acquittal on RICO conspiracy charges, finding suffic
• Miciotto v. United States
  D.D.C.· 1952-06-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was authorized by the rule, the rule was valid, and denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• Dixon v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Duval County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-10
  Terry Lequan Dixon challenged his state conviction for accessory after the fact on federal habeas corpus grounds, asserting that the evidence was insufficient, that the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for f
• Petite v. Lyft, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-22
  The Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion to remand, finding that the joinder of a non-diverse defendant destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2015-09-03
  The Court denied the defendants' motions for mistrial and severance. The court found that the witness's mention of witness protection, while improper, did not warrant a mistrial due to the brief nature of the statement, the lack of direct implication of the defendants, and the su
• United States v. Aiken
  76 F. Supp. 2d 1346· S.D. Fla.· 1999-11-22
  The court denied the motion to dismiss for improper venue and the motions for severance, finding that venue for the murder charge was proper and that a joint trial would not cause undue prejudice.
• United States v. Bodie
  990 F. Supp. 1419· S.D. Fla.· 1997-11-03
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and severance under Rule 14 was not warranted, as potential prejudice could be cured by jury instructions and redactions.
• United States v. Abbell
  926 F. Supp. 1545· S.D. Fla.· 1996-05-01
  The court denied motions to sever, finding that the defendants failed to establish misjoinder or compelling prejudice that would outweigh the public interest in a joint trial.
• United States v. Kenneth A. Weiner (91-1551) & Steven M. Lewin (91-1582)
  988 F.2d 629· 6th Cir.· 1993-03-11
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Weiner's cooperation with the FBI, the results of polygraph examinations, and in denying severance motions, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Robin Rene Warner (90-3753)
  971 F.2d 1189· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-27
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance or in its conduct during the trial.
• United States v. Odom
  888 F.2d 1014· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-31
  A trial court's discretion to sever defendants due to manifest necessity does not permit severing a defendant who objects to the severance, thereby subjecting them to double jeopardy.
• United States v. Saldivar
  710 F.2d 699· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-25
  The court held that the joinder of father and son for trial was proper, evidence previously used for a conspiracy count was admissible, character evidence restrictions were harmless, cross-examination and closing arguments were permissible, sufficiency of evidence supported convi
• Anderson v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-10-09
  District court dismissed bill for lack of diversity jurisdiction where plaintiff, a Florida citizen, sued the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (a District of Columbia citizen) and a Maryland corporation, because the court lacks jurisdiction over the Distri