Misprision Of Felony

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

• United States v. Giese
  597 F.2d 1170· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 179×
  The court held that the introduction and use of a book as evidence during trial was not plain error, even if potentially cumulative, as it was relevant to conspiratorial association and the defendant's own testimony opened the door for cross-examination on the matter.
• United States v. Sampol
  636 F.2d 621· D.C. Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the admission of informant testimony obtained from a defendant after indictment and while represented by counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, requires reversal of convictions. It also held that denying a separate trial to a defendant charged with offe
• United States v. Perlstein
  126 F.2d 789· 3d Cir.· 1942-02-20 ·cited 76×
  The court held that an indictment for conspiracy to obstruct justice requires an allegation and proof that a proceeding was actually pending and that the defendants knew of it.
• United States v. DYE
  508 F.2d 1226· 6th Cir.· 1974-08-22 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, the search of the U-Haul truck was lawful, and the failure to produce certain Jencks Act statements was harmless error.
• United States v. Fisher
  289 F.3d 1329· 11th Cir.· 2002-05-02 ·cited 68×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the appellants' motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that the Analogue Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813, as applied to gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), was not unconstitutionally vague. The court found that GBL is a controlle
• United States v. Daddano
  432 F.2d 1119· 7th Cir.· 1970-10-01 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, the denial of a continuance due to pretrial publicity was not an abuse of discretion, and the trial court's handling of publicity during trial and restrictions on cross-examination were not reversible error. C
• United States v. Warters
  885 F.2d 1266· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make findings on disputed sentencing facts and by departing from the guidelines without adequate explanation, requiring a remand for resentencing.
• United States v. Johnson
  546 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea to misprision of a felony was insufficient because it did not demonstrate the essential element of concealment.
• United States v. PEÑA
  930 F.2d 1486· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 37×
  The court held that improper prosecutorial remarks during closing argument were harmless error, and that the district court did not err in refusing jury instructions on minor/minimal participant status, identity, or lesser-included offenses. The court also affirmed the downward d
• United States v. Davila
  698 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 36×
  The dissent argues that an accused cannot be guilty of misprision of a felony when the conduct concealed is the commission of the felony itself, due to Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
• Bowen v. State
  791 So. 2d 44· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-06-08 ·cited 33×
  Bernice Bowen was convicted as an accessory after the fact to her boyfriend's manslaughter of her son, escape from police, and murders of two detectives and a trooper. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed her convictions on the manslaughter and trooper murder charges due
• United States v. Thomas
  488 F.2d 334· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that government intimidation of a potential defense witness deprived the appellants of due process by violating their right to present witnesses.
• United States v. Nelly Pilar Ramirez-Cifuentes
  682 F.2d 337· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-21 ·cited 32×
  A law enforcement agent's questioning of an individual, even when accompanied by a request to step aside, does not constitute a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment unless a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave.
• United States v. Bruner
  657 F.2d 1278· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of prescriptions under the business records exception or coconspirator rule was proper, and that the failure to give immediate limiting instructions on prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Broussard
  645 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a special parole term imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 963 is invalid, but a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects, including speedy trial claims.
• United States v. Norman
  391 F.2d 212· 6th Cir.· 1968-01-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged the appellant with misprision of felony, even when challenged after judgment.
• United States v. Benfield
  593 F.2d 815· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the procedures used during the videotaped deposition of a key witness, where the defendant was excluded from the witness's vision and unaware of the defendant's presence.
• United States v. Curley King
  402 F.2d 694· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-25 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's finding that the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the crime, knowing the money was stolen.
• United States v. Tunnell
  667 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the RICO convictions and forfeiture, and that the use of a videotaped deposition did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Brandenburg
  144 F.2d 656· 3d Cir.· 1944-09-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Fugitive Felon Act applies to common law definitions of crimes, not state-specific statutory denominations, and that the qualifying clause modifies 'prosecution' rather than the named offenses.
• Lancey v. United States
  356 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for misprision of a felony, as the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the crime and perpetrator after gaining knowledge of both.
• United States v. Klein
  187 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1951-03-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial arguments, or jury instructions, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Goldberg
  862 F.2d 101· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to establish a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea to misprision of a felony, rendering the plea unknowing.
• United States v. Wilson
  665 F.2d 825· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Wilson's convictions for murder and conspiracy, but affirmed Scott's convictions.
• In re Brogna
  589 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1978-12-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the witness's claim of privilege against self-incrimination was valid, as answering the questions could link her to criminal activity, and that the government's affidavits adequately addressed the electronic surveillance claim.
• United States v. Anne Lamont
  565 F.2d 212· 2d Cir.· 1977-10-28 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's rulings, jury instructions, or handling of evidence and witness testimony.
• United States v. Clark
  574 F.2d 1357· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a judge's delegation of explaining maximum penalties to the prosecutor is reversible error under Rule 11.
• United States v. Adislado Parades Rosales
  917 F.2d 1220· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a district court adequately makes findings by adopting a presentence report's recommendations, and that a guilty plea to a reduced charge does not automatically entitle a defendant to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
• United States v. Eladio Alvarez-Mena
  765 F.2d 1259· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the United States properly exercised criminal jurisdiction over a stateless vessel and its alien crew on the high seas for drug offenses, and that the seizure and search were lawful based on reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Gravitt
  590 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not apply because no detainer had been lodged, and a co-defendant's statement was not prejudicial.
• Meiners v. Moriarity
  563 F.2d 343· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions on malice for the defamation counterclaim were constitutionally deficient, requiring reversal and remand. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants were public officials.
• Suchite v. Kleppin
  819 F. Supp. 2d 1284· S.D. Fla.· 2011-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while reporting criminal activity is generally encouraged, doing so with retaliatory animus is unlawful under the FLSA. A state litigation privilege does not bar federal retaliation claims, and certain actions taken by defense counsel could constitute adverse
• United States v. Hodges
  566 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for misprision of felony and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or denying a mistrial.
• Miller v. United States
  230 F.2d 486· 5th Cir.· 1956-02-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that asserting a Fourth Amendment right to refuse entry without a warrant, even if it delays officers, does not constitute obstruction, resistance, or opposition under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1501.
• Burkett v. Chandler
  505 F.2d 217· 10th Cir.· 1974-11-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the disbarment and contempt judgments were procedurally deficient and lacked sufficient evidentiary support, thus reversing the disbarment and vacating the contempt orders.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Huff
  758 F. Supp. 2d 1288· S.D. Fla.· 2010-12-17 ·cited 9×
  The court amended its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law based on a motion for reconsideration, incorporating details from a seven-day bench trial and subsequent filings.
• United States v. Adams
  961 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court failed to establish an adequate factual basis for the guilty plea to misprision of a felony, this error was harmless because the record as a whole contained sufficient evidence of affirmative concealment.
• United States v. Baez
  732 F.2d 780· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying credit for time spent in custody, as this discretion is delegated to the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 3568.
• United States v. Burton Wesley Stuard and Donald W. Summar
  566 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the jury's conviction of the appellants for misprision of felony.
• Carlota Castaneda de Esper v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  557 F.2d 79· 6th Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 8×
  A conviction for misprision of a felony, even if the concealed felony involved narcotics, is not a conviction for a violation of a law 'relating to' narcotic drugs for deportation purposes under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(ll).
• United States v. KUH
  541 F.2d 672· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the misprision of felony statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4, could not be constitutionally applied to the defendants because their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protected them from being compelled to report a crime they were simultaneously committin
• United States v. Len Chandler
  380 F.2d 993· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was proper, and therefore, his conviction for criminal contempt should be reversed.
• United States v. Powell
  982 F.2d 1422· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute marijuana were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Barksdale-Contreras
  972 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and various evidentiary and instructional challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Bell
  966 F.2d 914· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 6×
  A defendant's guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects, including speedy trial claims, unless a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) is properly entered and preserved.
• United States v. Lairy Graves
  720 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record did not establish a sufficient factual basis for the guilty pleas to misprision of a felony, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f).
• Holland v. State
  302 So. 2d 806· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-11-08 ·cited 6×
  Holland, a city manager who discovered marijuana at an employee's house and decided not to prosecute to spare the employee and city embarrassment, was indicted for misprision of felony. The Florida appellate court held that misprision of felony—a common law crime of failing to re
• Sullivan v. United States
  411 F.2d 556· 10th Cir.· 1969-06-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the rebuttal evidence was admissible. The conviction is affirmed.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Hipolito Rivera Solis
  359 F.2d 518· 3d Cir.· 1966-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a witness who withheld information due to threats, and pleaded guilty to misprision of felony, is not an accomplice whose testimony requires corroboration under Virgin Islands law.
• Grudin v. United States
  198 F.2d 610· 9th Cir.· 1952-08-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Grudin did not waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by sending a non-incriminating letter, and therefore his refusal to answer subsequent incriminating questions was justified.