Mann Act

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

• Homan v. United States
  279 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1960-06-07 ·cited 116×
  The court held that while some trial court actions constituted technical errors, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and did not warrant reversal.
• Haskell Edward Johnson v. United States
  356 F.2d 680· 8th Cir.· 1966-02-18 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied a fair trial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on all counts.
• 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. Pelton
  578 F.2d 701· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuance motions, denying discovery of grand jury testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Defendant Pelton waived his severance claim and lacked standing to challeng
• United States v. Phillips
  640 F.2d 87· 7th Cir.· 1981-02-06 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial, denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, admitting certain evidence, or imposing consecutive sentences.
• United States v. Hattaway
  740 F.2d 1419· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants, admission of evidence regarding the victim's death and the defendants' lifestyle, and the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments were not grounds for reversal. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy convictions.
• Batsell v. United States
  217 F.2d 257· 8th Cir.· 1954-12-06 ·cited 65×
  A jury verdict of guilty under the Mann Act will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with another verdict, and the offense is complete upon interstate transportation with illicit intent, regardless of whether the purpose is achieved.
• Hattaway v. United States
  399 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1968-07-31 ·cited 64×
  The court held that prosecution under the Mann Act after acquittal on a kidnapping charge arising from the same interstate trip does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. Cariola
  323 F.2d 180· 3d Cir.· 1963-10-03 ·cited 64×
  The court held that a plea entered under judicial coercion or without understanding of consequences is invalid, entitling the petitioner to relief.
• United States v. Riley
  657 F.2d 1377· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 63×
• Barton v. United States
  263 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1959-02-26 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for severance, as the co-defendant's confession, which heavily implicated the moving defendant, could not be effectively limited by jury instructions.
• Tedesco v. United States
  118 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-26 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony of a witness regarding a separate offense to show intent, and that there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury.
• Theodulo Nava Reyes v. United States
  258 F.2d 774· 9th Cir.· 1958-07-17 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the statute requiring registration for narcotic addicts and violators crossing the border is constitutional and that knowledge of the law is not a defense. The court also held that a prior conviction qualifies under the statute even if the sentence imposed was
• Pine v. United States
  135 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1943-04-26 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy to violate the Mann Act, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Reginelli
  133 F.2d 595· 3d Cir.· 1943-01-25 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the Mann Act applies even without a commercial motive and that the jury could infer the required immoral purpose from circumstantial evidence.
• United States v. Wright
  573 F.2d 681· 1st Cir.· 1978-03-28 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, tape recordings, the prosecutor's comment on the failure to call witnesses, time variance, a car rental payment slip, and the denial of an accomplice instruction were not grounds for reversible error.
• United States v. Kobli
  172 F.2d 919· 3d Cir.· 1949-02-03 ·cited 49×
  The Sixth Amendment precludes the indiscriminate exclusion of the public from a criminal trial over the defendant's objection, limiting exclusion to specific justified reasons.
• United States v. Wheeler
  444 F.2d 385· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-25 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant transported women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, were not prejudicial.
• Langford v. United States
  178 F.2d 48· 9th Cir.· 1949-10-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that its prior decision was not contrary to Oriolo v. United States because the facts did not demonstrate a sufficient change of purpose.
• United States v. Bankston
  603 F.2d 528· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 47×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the conspiracy to kidnap conviction, but reversed the Mann Act conspiracy conviction due to insufficient proof of coconspirator knowledge. Double jeopardy claims were rejected, and the equal protection challenge to the Mann Act w
• Wiley v. United States
  257 F.2d 900· 8th Cir.· 1958-07-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction under the White Slave Traffic Act was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Sorrentino
  175 F.2d 721· 3d Cir.· 1949-07-06 ·cited 46×
  A defendant's constitutional right to a public trial can be waived by their counsel, and such waiver binds the defendant.
• Robinson v. United States
  143 F.2d 276· 10th Cir.· 1944-05-26 ·cited 45×
  The court held that multiple women transported in a single interstate trip for prostitution constitute a single offense under the Mann Act, not separate offenses for each woman.
• United States v. Love
  592 F.2d 1022· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the admission of an unsworn statement by an unavailable witness, offered under the statement against penal interest exception, was improper because the statement was not made under circumstances indicating it was against the declarant's penal interest when mad
• Stephens v. United States
  289 F.2d 308· 5th Cir.· 1961-04-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the failure to provide a verbatim transcript of all proceedings, as required by the Court Reporter Act, necessitates a new trial.
• Wright v. United States
  175 F.2d 384· 8th Cir.· 1949-06-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conviction under the Mann Act, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in its jury instructions.
• DeVAULT v. United States
  338 F.2d 179· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, in ordering the order of trial, or in giving a supplemental jury instruction after the jury reported being deadlocked.
• Pandelli v. United States
  635 F.2d 533· 6th Cir.· 1980-11-13 ·cited 36×
  Intervening Supreme Court interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause establishes that consecutive sentences for Mann Act and Travel Act violations arising from the same criminal episodes constitute double jeopardy.
• Hollingsworth v. United States
  321 F.2d 342· 10th Cir.· 1963-08-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that statements made by the defendant were admissible, as the delay in bringing him before a magistrate was not for the purpose of extracting a confession and did not taint the statements, and that the claim of taint from an unlawful search was raised too late.
• Alphonso Morgan v. United States
  396 F.2d 110· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a hearing is required to determine if the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest arising from his court-appointed attorney also representing a co-defendant.
• Dunn v. United States
  318 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by failing to provide a cautionary instruction to the jury regarding accomplice testimony, especially given the jury's deadlock.
• Long v. United States
  160 F.2d 706· 10th Cir.· 1947-03-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt for violating the Mann Act and conspiracy, as the defendant had guilty knowledge of the co-defendant's intent to engage in immoral practices with the transported minor.
• United States v. Erick Mitchell
  778 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that transporting a woman across state lines for the purpose of rape constitutes an "immoral purpose" under the Mann Act, and that successive federal prosecution after a state acquittal does not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Cole
  704 F.2d 554· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single conspiracy and that the Travel Act's 'distribution' requirement was met through the interstate wire transfers and subsequent receipt of funds. Cole's conviction for aiding and abetting was also supported by suffici
• United States v. HON
  306 F.2d 52· 7th Cir.· 1962-07-02 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the dominant motive for the interstate transportation was prostitution, thus reversing the conviction.
• Twitchell v. United States
  313 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1963-02-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction for Twitchell, Conklin, and the Rogers, as the proven conspiracy was primarily a state offense. However, the substantive Mann Act convictions for Mrs. Rogers and Mr. Rogers were affirmed.
• Cohen v. United States
  120 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1941-05-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant transported his wife for the purpose of prostitution.
• United States v. Spitler
  800 F.2d 1267· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance and mistrial, as the defendants failed to demonstrate sufficiently irreconcilable defenses or actual prejudice from a joint trial. The court also affirmed Carpenter's extortion co
• Ransom Gant v. United States
  506 F.2d 518· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant for wilfully failing to appear for trial and that the trial court's comments did not deny him a fair trial.
• Courtney v. United States
  390 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1968-03-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of certain testimony was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the Mann Act convictions. The court also considered the obstruction of justice conviction separately.
• United States v. Isobel Prince and Raymond Pandelli
  529 F.2d 1108· 6th Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Pandelli's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and consecutive sentences were permissible, while Prince's convictions under the Travel Act and for conspiracy were reversed due to insufficient proof of her knowledge or involvement in interstate ac
• United States v. Davis
  516 F.2d 574· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-15 ·cited 24×
  A guilty plea can be accepted under Rule 11 even if the defendant maintains innocence, provided there is a strong factual basis for the plea and the defendant understands the charge and consequences.
• United States v. Zoukas
  497 F.2d 1115· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant could not benefit from a witness's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that the victim's testimony constituted a 'thing of value' for extortion purposes, and that the offenses were properly joined.
• Singleton v. United States
  381 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1967-07-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or procedural decisions.
• Swanne Soon Young Pang v. United States
  209 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1953-12-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that instructing the jury on aiding and abetting was proper even if the indictment only charged the defendant as a principal, and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict.
• United States v. Truglio
  731 F.2d 1123· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that audio cassettes seized under a warrant for 'records' were permissible, cumulative sentences for RICO and Travel Act violations were constitutional, and the trial venue was proper. However, evidence was insufficient for certain convictions of one appellant.
• United States v. Maselli
  534 F.2d 1197· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-19 ·cited 22×
  A timely objection to a jury instruction presuming the truthfulness of every witness renders the instruction reversible error.
• 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.
• Valentine v. United States
  272 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1959-12-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the FBI agent's testimony was only for impeachment and not substantive evidence, and by using permissive language ('may') instead of mandatory language ('shall') in an instruction regarding reasonable
• Wegman v. United States
  272 F.2d 31· 8th Cir.· 1959-11-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions, and that failure to take exceptions precluded certain appeals.