Motion For Severance

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

• Vicente Juarez-Flores v. United States
  394 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the search and seizure of marihuana was justified by probable cause, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and substantive drug offenses for both appellants.
• United States v. Elmo Senior
  274 F.2d 613· 7th Cir.· 1960-02-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the trial judge's questioning of a witness about a prior conviction was improper and potentially prejudicial, it did not affect the jury's verdict given the overall evidence. The court also found other jury instructions and rulings to be proper.
• Gonzalez v. State
  786 So. 2d 559· Fla.· 2001-05-10 ·cited 17×
  Ricardo Gonzalez appeals his death sentence imposed following a resentencing hearing ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The Court affirms the death penalty, finding the trial court properly evaluated mitigating evidence and that the sentence is proportional to similar capital
• United States v. Stockton
  968 F.2d 715· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the sentences imposed on the defendants.
• United States v. Capote-Capote
  946 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that sufficient evidence supported the machine gun conviction. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance or in the ruling on impeachment evidence.
• Calle v. State
  493 So. 2d 1121· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-09-16 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Albert
  773 F.2d 386· 1st Cir.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for severance, admitting the FDIC certificate, sustaining a codefendant's Fifth Amendment privilege, or refusing to grant a judgment of acquittal.
• United States v. Nell
  570 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the second indictment was properly filed, the sentence imposed was not illegal, venue was established for tax counts, evidence was sufficient for embezzlement and extortion, and the prior testimony was admissible. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
• United States v. Royal Barney
  568 F.2d 134· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the joinder of charges, the denial of the motion to sever, the government's delay, and the trial court's procedural rulings did not violate the appellant's rights.
• United States v. Basile
  569 F.2d 1053· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Moseley
  450 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants' various contentions regarding discovery, evidence, jury instructions, and procedural motions lacked merit, and their convictions and sentences were affirmed.
• United States v. Feldman
  299 F.2d 914· 2d Cir.· 1962-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court should reverse the conviction and grant a new trial because jurors were exposed to prejudicial information about a co-defendant's guilty plea.
• Preston v. State
  641 So. 2d 169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-08-09 ·cited 15×
  Thomas Preston appeals his convictions for aggravated battery and false imprisonment. The Florida appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial due to the trial court's failure to conduct a Batson-type inquiry (Neil inquiry) into the prosecutor's gender-based peremptory ch
• Elwood C. Barclay v. State
  470 So. 2d 691· Fla.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Barclay's first-degree murder conviction but vacated his death sentence, holding that the trial court improperly overrode the jury's life imprisonment recommendation because several of the aggravating circumstances were not adequately supported
• Joyner v. United States
  547 F.2d 1199· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a co-defendant's prior inconsistent statements, though generally inadmissible as substantive evidence, can be admitted as substantive evidence against another defendant if they fall under the coconspirator rule. The court also held that the issue of entrapment
• United States v. Thunder
  893 F.2d 950· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions for kidnapping and sexual abuse but vacated the sentence for sexual abuse due to material misinformation regarding abduction, remanding for resentencing.
• Spivey v. State
  533 So. 2d 306· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-11-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to sever was not an abuse of discretion, but the habitual offender sentence was improperly imposed due to insufficient justification.
• Matheson v. State
  468 So. 2d 1011· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-04-10 ·cited 14×
  Ronald Matheson and Timothy Joyce appealed their convictions for conspiracy to traffic in cannabis and carrying a concealed firearm, arguing various trial errors including alleged discovery violations. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions, findin
• United States v. Ectore Gregorio Garcia
  647 F.2d 794· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a key government witness, nor in refusing to sever the trial.
• United States v. Kirkland
  637 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instruction defining 'conveyance' as mere movement was improper, requiring reversal of Brown's conviction. The court affirmed Kirkland's conviction, finding the prosecutor's misconduct did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Alejandro
  527 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that probable cause existed for the arrests, that severance was not required, and that evidence of a prior conviction was admissible for limited purposes.
• United States v. Falange
  426 F.2d 930· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in denying motions to withdraw the jury, in his instructions regarding accomplice testimony, or in his instructions on the single conspiracy charge, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions.
• United States v. Jackson
  409 F.2d 8· 6th Cir.· 1969-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for severance, as the co-defendant's testimony was given in court, allowing for confrontation and cross-examination.
• United States v. Gray
  958 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no plain error in jury instructions, no due process violation in identification procedures, no abuse of discretion in denying severance, and declining to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to an undeveloped record.
• United States v. Martin
  920 F.2d 345· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute convictions, finding insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Myers
  917 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's trial counsel's strategic decisions, including not moving for severance and not requesting a cautionary jury instruction, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington.
• United States v. Westbrook
  896 F.2d 330· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior transactions, denying a mistrial, admitting identification testimony, refusing a proposed jury instruction, or denying a motion to sever. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convict
• United States v. Dempewolf
  817 F.2d 1318· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, refusing an addict-informer instruction, admitting certain evidence, denying severance, or finding the evidence sufficient to convict.
• United States v. Holloway
  778 F.2d 653· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment, as the appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient prosecutorial misconduct or prejudice to warrant dismissal or an evidentiary hearing.
• Dean v. State
  430 So. 2d 491· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-04-05 ·cited 12×
  Nathaniel Dean appealed his convictions for conspiracy and grand larceny, raising four contentions. The Third District Court of Appeal rejected all arguments and affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings regarding closing arguments, joinde
• United States v. Booker T. Wright
  661 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the value of stolen postal property exceeding $100, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for directed verdict, severance, or a new trial.
• United States v. Chester
  537 F.2d 173· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 12×
  The magistrate's determination of probable cause to search Chester's residence was improper because the affidavit did not establish probable cause, only mere suspicion.
• United States v. Leong
  536 F.2d 993· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy and that venue was properly established for the substantive offense. The court also rejected claims of double jeopardy and prejudice from other defendants' claims.
• United States v. McGRUDER
  514 F.2d 1288· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for severance, as the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict against the appealing defendants.
• Weedin v. United States
  380 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1967-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for aiding and abetting a bank robbery.
• Coney v. State
  193 So. 2d 57· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-12-20 ·cited 12×
  Jimmie Lee Coney was convicted of rape and appealed, challenging the admission of evidence showing he attempted to accost another woman in a similar manner nine months after the alleged rape, and challenging references to him in his co-defendant's incriminating statements. The Fl
• United States v. DiFRONZO
  345 F.2d 383· 7th Cir.· 1965-04-29 ·cited 12×
  The evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting or conspiring in the interstate transportation of stolen property.
• Mayo v. Harlan Blackburn
  250 F.2d 645· 5th Cir.· 1957-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The federal court held that the state prisoner was not denied due process or equal protection by the state court's rulings on motions to quash, sever, or change venue, as the state courts properly considered the evidence and constitutional rights.
• United States v. Crawford
  726 F.2d 424· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-03 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants.
• Colebrook v. State
  205 So. 2d 675· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-01-03 ·cited 11×
  Four defendants convicted of rape and assault appealed, challenging the admission of a post-indictment custodial statement by co-defendant Fernandez that implicated them. The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed all convictions, holding that Fernandez's voluntary and properly warned
• United States v. Tracy
  989 F.2d 1279· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for the district court to reconsider the obstruction of justice enhancement, as its findings on perjury were unclear.
• United States v. Henry Sivils (90-6366)
  960 F.2d 587· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-31 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that prosecutorial misconduct did not infect the trial, the district court's handling of alternate jurors was harmless error, severance was not required, and the sentencing enhancement for firearm possession was proper.
• United States v. DiBERNARDO
  880 F.2d 1216· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial for Rothstein based on D'Apice's testimony under Rule 33, but that the motion could be considered under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court reversed the grant of a new trial for DiBernardo due to his dis
• United States v. Paul Douglas Hessling (87-3344)
  845 F.2d 617· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 10×
• Kennedy v. State
  490 So. 2d 195· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-06-20 ·cited 10×
  Michael Kennedy was convicted of crimes involving a firearm. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but vacated his sentences for aggravated battery with a firearm and attempted robbery with a firearm, finding the trial judge deviated from sentencing guidelines without prop
• United States v. Harris
  720 F.2d 1259· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's stern admonishment of defense counsel, while improper, did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial or effective assistance of counsel, and the denial of the motion to exclude prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Walker
  706 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance or in ruling that the defendant lacked standing to challenge evidence seized from a co-defendant's residence.
• United States v. Boles
  684 F.2d 534· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the eight-month delay between arrest and indictment did not violate appellants' speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act, and individual contentions were without merit.
• United States v. Morgan
  562 F.2d 1001· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire, suppression of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, or motions for mistrial/severance.
• United States v. DI Giovanni
  544 F.2d 642· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, and that the admission of testimony and evidence was not erroneous, leading to the affirmation of the convictions.