Marchetti V. United States

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

• United States v. Hill
  430 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the search of the truck was a valid border search and that any error in admitting statements made by the appellants was harmless.
• United States v. Stirling
  571 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the defendant's grand jury testimony into evidence.
• Emilio Pizzarello v. United States
  408 F.2d 579· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-18 ·cited 79×
  The court held that a jeopardy tax assessment based on illegally seized evidence and calculated using an arbitrary and unsupported method is invalid and may be enjoined, especially when the taxpayer faces irreparable harm and lacks an adequate legal remedy due to Fifth Amendment
• Hunsucker v. Phinney
  497 F.2d 29· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-10 ·cited 74×
• United States v. Haydel
  649 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-08 ·cited 69×
  The court held that gambling records seized pursuant to a warrant, even if the warrant's description of the premises was ambiguous and the initial probable cause related to gambling offenses, were admissible in a prosecution for tax evasion, as the defendant had a legitimate expe
• Sam (Salvatore) DiPIAZZA v. United States
  415 F.2d 99· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-11 ·cited 52×
  The court held that telephone company toll records are protected by § 605 of the Communications Act, and the use of IRS summons for criminal evidence violates this protection.
• Nolan v. United States
  423 F.2d 1031· 10th Cir.· 1969-11-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Fifth Amendment privilege by failing to assert it at trial, and that his claims regarding jury selection, co-conspirator's tax stamp, and electronic surveillance were without merit or waived.
• United States v. Lewis
  475 F.2d 571· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the government failed to prove the defendants' evasion of wagering excise tax by underreporting on individual returns.
• Reed v. United States
  401 F.2d 756· 8th Cir.· 1968-09-26 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper, and that the Haynes v. United States self-incrimination defense did not apply to a charge of possessing a firearm illegally made by another.
• United States v. Minor
  398 F.2d 511· 2d Cir.· 1968-07-03 ·cited 40×
  Compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a), requiring a written order form for the sale of narcotics, does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• DePUGH v. United States
  401 F.2d 346· 8th Cir.· 1968-09-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that charges related to conspiracy to transfer or make firearms, and possession of unregistered firearms, must be dismissed due to the privilege against self-incrimination. However, a charge of possessing a firearm on which the making tax was not paid survives, but
• United States v. United States Coin & Currency In the Amount OF $8
  393 F.2d 499· 7th Cir.· 1968-04-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that civil forfeiture of property used in violating wagering tax provisions is impermissible when compliance with those provisions would subject the claimant to a risk of self-incrimination.
• United States v. Currency
  626 F.2d 11· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-14 ·cited 33×
  Forfeiture proceedings are criminal in nature and require constitutional protections afforded in criminal cases, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Augustine Ferrone
  438 F.2d 381· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 32×
  A person does not have a right to forcibly resist the execution of a search warrant, even if it is later found invalid, due to society's interest in orderly dispute resolution and minimizing violence.
• United States v. Kelley
  395 F.2d 727· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-27 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction on counts 1 and 2, finding no error in the use of interstate telephone calls to facilitate illegal bookmaking. The conviction on counts 3 and 4 was reversed based on Supreme Court precedent regarding gambling tax statutes.
• United States v. Manfredonia
  414 F.2d 760· 2d Cir.· 1969-08-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant's perjury conviction was valid despite the reversal of his underlying wagering tax conviction, as materiality is judged at the time of the testimony.
• United States v. Scherer
  523 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-04 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a licensed firearms dealer's sales of firearms, regardless of location or whether the firearms were considered personal, are subject to federal record-keeping requirements, and that these requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-i
• United States v. David A. Sturman (90-3147)
  951 F.2d 1466· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the 'defraud' clause of 18 U.S.C. § 371 was applicable to the broad conspiracy charged, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of David Sturman and Ralph Levine. The court also found that the willfulness element for Reuben Sturman's fa
• United States v. Stavros
  597 F.2d 108· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that multiple punishments for the same offense violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, even if arising from different statutory sections, and remanded for the government to elect which convictions to pursue.
• United States v. Errol Bernard Resnick
  488 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that testimony suggesting unrelated criminal activity was harmless error, and the firearms record-keeping provisions do not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Brown v. United States
  401 F.2d 769· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that possession of distilled spirits without proper stamps does not pose a danger of self-incrimination under the relevant statutes.
• United States & Gerald T. Padar v. Porter
  711 F.2d 1397· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 22×
  The act of producing taxpayer-generated cancelled checks and deposit slips is testimonial and thus protected by the Fifth Amendment, but the contents of the documents are not; therefore, statutory use immunity and a protective order are required for their production.
• Loy Buford Hall v. United States
  407 F.2d 1320· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the conviction, finding no error in the district court's proceedings.
• United States v. Jeffers
  621 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the post-Marchetti amendments to federal wagering tax laws, specifically 26 U.S.C. § 4424, adequately protect against self-incrimination hazards, and that the search warrant affidavit met the Aguilar-Spinelli test for probable cause.
• United States v. Sannicandro
  434 F.2d 321· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-16 ·cited 19×
  Convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 176a are reversed due to Leary v. United States, but the conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a) is affirmed.
• United States v. Whitehead
  424 F.2d 446· 6th Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 18×
• MacKey v. United States
  411 F.2d 504· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-04 ·cited 18×
  Conviction for income tax evasion will not be set aside on collateral attack based on subsequent Supreme Court rulings that federal gambling tax returns, admitted at trial without objection on self-incrimination grounds, were unconstitutionally compelled.
• Porter Anderson and Preston M. Southern v. United States
  403 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not a valid defense to charges related to unregistered distilleries and untaxpaid spirits.
• United States v. Lookretis
  398 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1968-07-15 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Appoloney
  761 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions were valid, rejecting claims of judicial prejudice, improper IRS procedure, Fifth Amendment violations, suppression of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Quatermain
  613 F.2d 38· 3d Cir.· 1980-01-14 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, finding that the agreement not to prosecute, despite its ambiguity, should be construed against the government and extend to the silencer prosecution.
• United States v. Sahadi
  555 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the revised federal wagering tax laws, including the disclosure restrictions in 26 U.S.C. § 4424, do not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Willoz
  449 F.2d 1321· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a hearing is required to determine if a supplemental tax form was signed under duress, and if so, the conviction must be vacated; otherwise, it stands affirmed.
• Garner v. United States
  501 F.2d 228· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-05 ·cited 14×
  A taxpayer who files an income tax return and discloses incriminating information without asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege on the return may not invoke that privilege at a later criminal trial to exclude the tax return from evidence. The Fifth Amendment privilege against sel
• Nolan v. United States
  395 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-20 ·cited 14×
  The admission of evidence concerning the defendant's application for a wagering tax stamp and his filing of tax returns constituted reversible error due to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Greenwood v. United States
  392 F.2d 558· 4th Cir.· 1968-02-09 ·cited 14×
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a complete defense to prosecution for violations of federal wagering tax laws, even if not asserted in the trial court.
• United States v. Dimas Campos-Serrano
  430 F.2d 173· 7th Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the defendant should have received Miranda warnings before being compelled to produce his alien registration receipt card a second time, as the circumstances created a custodial interrogation. Therefore, the forged card should not have been admitted into evide
• Shaffer v. United States
  528 F.2d 920· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the taxpayer's refund suit and entering judgment for the government based solely on the taxpayer's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege during discovery.
• United States v. Lauchli
  444 F.2d 1037· 7th Cir.· 1971-06-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions under the amended National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act were valid, and his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not violated. The court also rejected challenges to the search warrants, speedy trial rights, a
• Gaxiola v. United States
  435 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-27 ·cited 12×
  A guilty plea entered after the Haynes decision, even if before Leary, constitutes a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination for a prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a).
• Desimone v. United States
  423 F.2d 576· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a timely assertion of the right against self-incrimination is a bar to prosecution for failing to register under 26 U.S.C. § 5821.
• Wynn v. United States
  422 F.2d 1245· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Tariff Act's requirement to declare all merchandise, including marijuana, does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• EBY v. United States
  415 F.2d 319· 10th Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 12×
  A guilty plea waives the privilege against self-incrimination, even if the underlying statute is later deemed unconstitutional on Fifth Amendment grounds.
• United States v. Prevatt
  414 F.2d 239· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that resort to the federal judiciary to vindicate Fifth Amendment rights is inappropriate when evidence was lawfully seized under a statute later held voidable.
• United States v. Williams
  412 F.2d 625· 3d Cir.· 1969-06-18 ·cited 12×
  An indictment amended in matter of substance, changing the gravamen of the offense, is invalid without action by the grand jury that returned it, even if the defendant consents.
• Montgomery v. United States
  407 F.2d 1312· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding the admissibility of his confession, the sufficiency of corroboration for informer testimony, and the constitutionality of the statute were without merit or not properly preserved for appeal.
• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Lamphier
  714 F.2d 331· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendant violated state and federal antipollution laws, including RCRA, and committed common law nuisance, affirming the district court's judgment and injunction.
• State v. Chapman
  240 So. 2d 491· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-10-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing Counts One and Two for lack of specificity regarding the dates of the offenses, but erred in dismissing Count Five, and agreed with the trial court's grant of immunity to Fred Chapman.
• United States v. Gallo
  859 F.2d 1078· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 10×
  The inadvertent inclusion of a small portion of a defendant's prior immunized testimony in an application for electronic surveillance, which did not influence the decision to seek or issue the surveillance order, constitutes harmless error and does not require dismissal of the in
• United States v. Castro
  438 F.2d 468· 7th Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for receiving illegally imported marihuana was valid, as the statute did not require proof of violation of the Marihuana Tax Act, and the indictment and jury instructions were sufficient.