Marchetti V. United States

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

• United States v. Ruggerio A. Boiardo, Sr.
  408 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1969-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly refused to reopen a dismissed criminal case to enjoin the use of evidence in other prosecutions, and properly denied injunctive relief in a related civil suit.
• Harris v. State
  563 So. 2d 97· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-04-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Florida Statutes section 212.0505 is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.
• Romanelli v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  466 F.2d 872· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 8×
  Statements obtained in violation of Miranda warnings, though inadmissible in a criminal case in chief, can be used to establish civil tax liability. Warrants issued before Marchetti and Grosso, based on probable cause for wagering tax violations, remain valid.
• Lucia v. United States
  447 F.2d 912· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-23 ·cited 8×
• Zizzo v. United States
  431 F.2d 913· 7th Cir.· 1970-09-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Marchetti and Grosso decisions, which established that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination can be asserted as a defense to prosecution for failure to pay federal wagering taxes, should be applied retroactively to cases involving gambli
• Howard v. United States
  397 F.2d 72· 9th Cir.· 1968-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions are affirmed because they failed to assert the privilege against self-incrimination at trial, and the aiding and abetting charges are not barred by a co-defendant's privilege.
• United States & Richard Kawabata v. Schmidt
  816 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that appellants' generalized fear of self-incrimination was insufficient to justify a blanket refusal to produce documents requested by IRS summonses, and that failure to tender witness fees is not a bar to enforcement.
• United States v. Falcone
  544 F.2d 607· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for bankruptcy fraud and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.
• United States v. Augustus Hunt
  419 F.2d 1· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-01 ·cited 6×
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not provide a complete defense to charges arising from the operation of an illicit liquor distillery.
• Rodgers v. United States
  413 F.2d 251· 10th Cir.· 1969-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and had jurisdiction to impose sentence. The validity of the original conviction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal from a probation revocation order.
• Lauchli v. United States
  402 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1968-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination was not waived, even though not raised at trial, due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
• Otto Kuhn v. United States
  415 F.2d 111· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting dated bet slips into evidence and that the search warrant was valid.
• Scaglione v. United States
  396 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the requirements of the Federal Wagering Tax Stamp statutes violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Harrelson
  442 F.2d 290· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant and search his automobile based on a corroborated informant's tip, and that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to the charge of possessing a firearm altered in violation
• United States v. Nolan
  571 F.2d 528· 10th Cir.· 1978-02-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the petitioner's motion to vacate sentence was properly denied because the prior ruling on waiver was not disturbed by subsequent case law and the Supreme Court decisions relied upon were not retroactively applicable to his case.
• Rainwater v. State
  208 So. 2d 865· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-04-15 ·cited 3×
  This case was remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Marchetti v. United States. The Florida appellate court vacated its prior judgment and reversed the lower court's judgment, ordering a new trial.
• In re Kenny
  715 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 2×
  Compulsory production of patient medical records required by state law does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination under the required records exception.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Custodian of Records
  497 F.2d 218· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 2×
  A real estate broker cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to withhold escrow deposit records required by state law, as these records fall under the 'required records exception'.
• Lauchli v. United States
  481 F.2d 408· 7th Cir.· 1973-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's convictions under the National Firearms Act of 1934 were valid because the classes of firearm manufacturers and transferors were not inherently suspect, and compliance with the Act's provisions did not present a substantial hazard of self-incr
• Hal Simmons v. United States
  476 F.2d 715· 10th Cir.· 1973-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Marihuana Tax Act excise tax provisions, despite their severity and collateral regulatory purpose, remain a valid civil tax that can be collected even when asserting the privilege against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Reiff
  435 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1970-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the record-keeping requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act do not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when applied to a licensed practitioner dispensing controlled drugs.
• Casados v. United States
  425 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions affecting the constitutionality of the statutes under which the appellant was convicted.
• Mower v. United States
  402 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1968-11-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the conviction for carrying an unregistered firearm in interstate commerce (Count I) must be vacated due to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as established in Haynes v. United States. However, the conviction for possessing a firearm tr
• United States v. Busk
  730 F.2d 129· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-22
  The court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings before a suppression order, and that wagering tax records not voluntarily provided to the IRS are not protected from disclosure for non-revenue prosecutions.
• Higginbotham v. United States
  491 F.2d 432· 4th Cir.· 1974-01-28
  The court held that the provision allowing assessment at any time for failure to file a return is not an unconstitutional punishment, even if filing might incriminate the taxpayer.
• Vasilinda v. United States
  487 F.2d 24· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-12
  The court held that the collection of an excise tax on marijuana transfer does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when the government assesses the tax based on its own information, and that the suit is barred by the Tax Injunction Act.
• United States v. ONE Olivetti-Underwood Elec. Adding Mach.
  443 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-04
  The court held that property used in violation of certain tax statutes is not subject to forfeiture if the owner asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege in related criminal proceedings.
• United States v. Garelle
  438 F.2d 366· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-13
  The court held that the admission of certain letters and a handwriting exemplar was proper, and that Zimmerman's speedy trial rights were not violated. However, Garelle's prior conviction was found invalid due to Fifth Amendment issues, requiring resentencing.
• Porter v. Scribner
  430 F.2d 1305· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-26
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund or an injunction against the collection of federal gaming device taxes, as their claims of compulsory self-incrimination were unsubstantial and they failed to meet jurisdictional requirements for a refund suit.
• Ibrahim Alverez v. United States
  426 F.2d 301· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-03
  Convictions for possessing marijuana without paying the transfer tax are reversed due to self-incrimination risk, while convictions for transferring marijuana without an order form are affirmed.
• Otey v. United States
  417 F.2d 559· D.C. Cir.· 1969-09-10
  The conviction for possession of marijuana is reversed based on the privilege against self-incrimination, while the conviction for possession of dangerous drugs is affirmed.
• Heligman v. United States
  407 F.2d 448· 8th Cir.· 1969-03-05
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to a corporate officer's failure to file or cause to be filed corporate tax returns, even if the officer faces unrelated criminal charges.
• United States v. Sams
  406 F.2d 404· 3d Cir.· 1969-01-09
  The court held that the judgment forfeiting the bond should be vacated and remanded because the underlying anti-wagering statutes were subsequently declared unconstitutional.