Motion For Severance

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

• Maynard v. United States
  215 F.2d 336· D.C. Cir.· 1954-08-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial judge's response to the jury's question, by reading the relevant statutory language regarding prima facie evidence, was appropriate and did not confuse the jury or invade their province. The conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Means
  695 F.2d 811· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 33×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty for mail fraud, fraud by wire, and aiding and abetting, and that no reversible errors were committed by the trial court.
• United States v. Harris
  908 F.2d 728· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that two juror remarks were ambiguous and did not necessitate further investigation into juror misconduct.
• United States v. Studley
  892 F.2d 518· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions for continuance, severance, and acquittal, nor in admitting evidence of prior similar acts.
• United States v. Hernandez
  829 F.2d 988· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to sever, suppress wiretap evidence, disclose informants, admit post-arrest threat evidence, or in admitting co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Wright
  826 F.2d 938· 10th Cir.· 1987-08-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for continuance, bill of particulars, severance, and in admitting certain evidence, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's convictions.
• Sanford K. Bronstein v. Louie L. Wainwright
  646 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-04 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations that rendered the petitioner's state trial fundamentally unfair.
• United States v. Ortega-Alvarez
  506 F.2d 455· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for a single, wide-ranging narcotics conspiracy and substantive violations, and that various procedural and constitutional claims raised by the appellants lacked merit.
• Allen v. United States
  202 F.2d 329· D.C. Cir.· 1952-07-18 ·cited 31×
  A confession is not inadmissible solely due to illegal detention if the detention did not produce the confession, and the defendant provides an alternative motive for confessing.
• United States v. Roberts
  881 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and that various sentencing and procedural challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Ciambrone
  787 F.2d 799· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to link the appellant to the conspiracy to commit extortion, and that co-conspirator statements were admissible.
• United States v. Schmaltz
  562 F.2d 558· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
• Donnie James Smith v. Ira Kelso
  863 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge did not deny the petitioner due process by refusing to grant a severance because no events had occurred that worked undue prejudice at the time the motion was denied.
• United States v. Alvarado
  647 F.2d 537· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring venue, excusing witnesses, admitting identification testimony, or finding the evidence sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Noe Larios-Montes
  500 F.2d 941· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Border Patrol agents had founded suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever.
• United States v. Mallory
  460 F.2d 243· 10th Cir.· 1972-05-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Watson's conviction must be reversed due to insufficient evidence, while Mallory's conviction is affirmed based on sufficient evidence of her possession and knowledge.
• United States v. Pavelski
  789 F.2d 485· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained from the appellants' car was harmless error, and the denial of John Rudolph's motion for severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Horst Werner Joetzki
  952 F.2d 1090· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions but vacated Gisner's sentence, remanding for resentencing because the district court failed to expressly order consecutive sentences as required by statute when the total punishment exceeded the statutory maximum for the individual counts.
• United States v. Ovidio Camejo
  929 F.2d 610· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of prior good conduct offered to negate intent, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Brown
  870 F.2d 1354· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 26×
  A guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional claims, including denial of counsel of choice and severance, and a defendant must object to presentence report inaccuracies at sentencing or forfeit the right to challenge them on appeal.
• United States v. Sudderth
  681 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed LeCompte's convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute the first marihuana load, but reversed his conviction for the second load due to insufficient evidence. Sudderth's convictions were affirmed.
• Sosa v. State
  215 So. 2d 736· Fla.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 26×
  The appellate court reversed the convictions, finding that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct an in camera inspection of subpoenaed correspondence and in admitting extrajudicial statements that went beyond corroboration and introduced extrinsic facts. The court also add
• Elton Ray Barnes and Bunchie White v. United States
  374 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance, continuance, or in admitting evidence and confessions, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Candoli
  870 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the attempted arson conviction, but affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no reversible error in the other evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Person v. Miller
  854 F.2d 656· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the contempt conviction, the appointment of private counsel to assist in prosecution was permissible under specific conditions, and the jury selection and severance rulings were not erroneous.
• Slaughter v. State
  301 So. 2d 762· Fla.· 1974-09-25 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and arson of a school building, rejecting constitutional challenges to Florida's conspiracy statute and jury selection procedures, and finding no reversible error in the trial court's conduct.
• Petro v. United States
  210 F.2d 49· 6th Cir.· 1954-02-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that any errors were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Sonnie Davis
  932 F.2d 752· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed convictions for heroin possession and witness tampering, finding no Fourth Amendment violations and sufficient evidence. It reversed the sentence for Kevin Davis, finding the district court erred in not applying the career offender guideline.
• United States v. Caudill
  915 F.2d 294· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the late-disclosed tape recording or denying the severance motion.
• United States v. Daniel Scott Gahagan (87-1991)
  865 F.2d 1490· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the search warrant's description, when supplemented by the affidavit and the executing officers' knowledge, was sufficiently particular to identify the premises to be searched, thus complying with the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Davis
  787 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior conviction because the defendant's misleading testimony breached a stipulation, and the conviction was used to correct a misstatement, not solely for impeachment.
• Miner v. Westlake
  478 So. 2d 1066· Fla.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the state's mere convenience in trying codefendants together is not an exceptional circumstance sufficient to extend a defendant's speedy trial time over the defendant's objection. The Court clarified that a defendant's speedy trial right takes
• United States v. Reed
  733 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the initial warrantless entry onto the C.D.Y. premises was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the subsequent searches and seizures were lawful.
• United States v. Agha Kaleem Ullah Khan
  728 F.2d 676· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance to secure a codefendant's testimony, as the defendant failed to show the codefendant would testify and the Fifth Amendment privilege could still be invoked.
• United States v. Robertson
  706 F.2d 253· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the conviction on count III for carrying a firearm during a felony must be reversed due to insufficient evidence, while convictions on other counts are affirmed.
• United States v. Goodson
  502 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a divergence between the indictment's charge of conspiracy to forge and the proof of conspiracy to endorse is fatal to the conspiracy conviction. However, convictions on substantive counts are affirmed.
• United States v. Brooks
  957 F.2d 1138· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but vacated one defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Piatt
  679 F.2d 1228· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a district court may reread selected jury instructions in response to jury questions, provided it cautions the jury to consider them with all original instructions, and that the government is not required to disclose witness identities in non-capital cases.
• United States v. Vasilios
  598 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias, the error was not prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of a subsequent trial for Vasilios, finding that judicial administration concerns outweighed hi
• United States v. Johnson
  451 F.2d 1321· 4th Cir.· 1971-11-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence seized under a state-issued search warrant was admissible because federal officers did not participate in the search, thus Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(a) did not require a judge of a court of record to issue the warrant.
• United States v. Grover C. Bryant, Jr.
  364 F.2d 598· 4th Cir.· 1966-08-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for inspection of grand jury testimony and for severance, as the defendants failed to show a particularized need and the evidence supported a single conspiracy charge.
• The United States v. Felton
  811 F.2d 190· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 19×
  The majority's interpretation of the Speedy Trial Act, particularly section 3161(h)(1)(F), allows for excessive delays in bringing cases to trial by permitting indefinite postponements of pre-trial motions.
• Morgan v. State
  303 So. 2d 393· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-11-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, including the possession of recently stolen property, and that the circumstantial evidence rule did not apply.
• United States v. McLAUGHLIN
  957 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in denying Bruce's motion to suppress based on an alleged informal immunity agreement, nor in its evidentiary rulings or refusal to sever McLaughlin's trial.
• United States v. Brown
  946 F.2d 58· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The convictions are affirmed, but the sentences are vacated and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to make required findings regarding drug quantity and denied defendants their right to allocution.
• United States v. Terrell
  754 F.2d 1139· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the net worth calculation, jury instructions, or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Montelongo
  507 F.2d 639· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying defendants' motions to quash the jury panel without allowing inquiry into prior jury service in narcotics cases and in consolidating cases without proper severance.
• United States v. Hamilton
  492 F.2d 1110· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for continuance and severance, nor in refusing a tendered guilty plea, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Fairchild
  435 F.2d 972· 10th Cir.· 1970-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for continuance, severance, or election between counts, nor in its handling of defendant statements or sufficiency of evidence.
• Breeze v. United States
  398 F.2d 178· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for harboring, concealing, and assisting a military deserter, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal.