Motion To Dismiss Indictment

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

• United States v. Louin Ray Bright
  630 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 230×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the pre-trial rulings, trial rulings, jury charge, or closing arguments.
• United States v. Hoffa
  349 F.2d 20· 6th Cir.· 1965-07-29 ·cited 203×
  The court held that the "suggester system" for jury selection is not per se invalid and that the defendants failed to make a sufficient showing of discrimination to warrant a full investigation into the grand jury's composition. The court also held that the informant's testimony
• Larzelere v. State
  676 So. 2d 394· Fla.· 1996-03-28 ·cited 198×
  Virginia Gail Larzelere was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for orchestrating the murder of her husband, a dentist, to collect life insurance. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of pre
• United States v. Edwards
  577 F.2d 883· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·cited 137×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the search of the Cadillac.
• United States v. Jones
  542 F.2d 661· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-30 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) and (d), does not contain an implied exception for interspousal wiretaps, and therefore, such conduct is prohibited.
• United States v. Prueitt
  540 F.2d 995· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a bill of particulars and that Petersen had automatic standing to challenge searches.
• Jones v. United States
  342 F.2d 863· D.C. Cir.· 1964-07-16 ·cited 64×
  Confessions obtained during illegal detention are inadmissible, and indictments obtained in violation of constitutional rights, including the right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination, must be dismissed.
• United States v. Esle
  743 F.2d 1465· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 61×
  The court held that appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation because they did not prove the percentage of Hispanics eligible for jury service in the general population.
• United States v. Ponto
  454 F.2d 657· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-14 ·cited 56×
• United States v. Thompson
  944 F.2d 1331· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed convictions for some appellants, but vacated and remanded sentences for others, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings on grand jury use, wiretaps, and evidence production.
• United States v. Burns
  684 F.2d 1066· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence seized during the arrest and post-arrest statements, and that the defendant's post-arrest statements to an Assistant U.S. Attorney, though obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, constituted
• United States v. Wright
  667 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the black ledger was improperly seized under the plain view doctrine because its incriminating nature was not immediately apparent, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Moore v. DeYOUNG
  515 F.2d 437· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-08 ·cited 50×
  The federal court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus and enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. The petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies on the merits of his speedy trial claim and did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify
• United States v. Gonzalez
  800 F.2d 895· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that convictions for armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for continuance, substitute counsel, or dismissal of the in
• United States v. Torkington
  812 F.2d 1347· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Trademark Counterfeiting Act does not require a showing of direct purchaser confusion, but rather confusion of the purchasing public, including in a post-sale context.
• United States v. Mikal Habeeb Amuny
  767 F.2d 1113· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the intrusiveness of a trespass is a factor in determining the legitimacy of a privacy expectation, not an independent test for Fourth Amendment violations.
• Gates v. United States
  122 F.2d 571· 10th Cir.· 1941-08-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for mail fraud and Securities Act violations, and that the trial court did not err in its procedural rulings.
• Bryant v. State
  386 So. 2d 237· Fla.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 38×
  Mattie Bryant appealed her second-degree murder conviction, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's jury selection statute based on alleged underrepresentation of blacks, women, and young adults on grand juries, and arguing her indictment was insufficient. The Florida Supr
• Seay v. State
  286 So. 2d 532· Fla.· 1973-11-01 ·cited 38×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of statutes designating circuit judges as a jury commission to select grand jury members in larger counties. The court also addressed whether appellants properly challenged grand jury composition and whether Silva's nolo cont
• Anderson v. State
  420 So. 2d 574· Fla.· 1982-09-02 ·cited 36×
  Anderson appealed his conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court vacated both the adjudication and sentence, holding that statements Anderson made to deputies violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and that his February stat
• United States v. Findley
  439 F.2d 970· 1st Cir.· 1971-03-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a dismissal of an indictment based on evidentiary facts establishing a defense on the merits, even if granted pre-trial, is effectively an acquittal and therefore not appealable by the government under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
• United States v. Levy
  577 F.2d 200· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in weighing prejudice from the government's intrusion into the attorney-client relationship, and that such an intrusion, when confidential information is disclosed, requires reversal without a showing of actual prejudice.
• United States v. Ofshe
  817 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that neither the search warrant's technical defects nor the government's use of a defense attorney as an informant warranted dismissal of the indictment, as no demonstrable prejudice occurred.
• Lucious Andrews, Jr. v. State
  443 So. 2d 78· Fla.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a death sentence for sexual battery of a child, holding that the trial court's improper comment on the defendant's right not to testify, without a cautionary instruction, constituted reversible error that violated his constitutional right to mak
• Hoffa v. Honorable Frank Gray, Jr.
  323 F.2d 178· 6th Cir.· 1963-09-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not available to review a district court's discretionary orders denying a motion to dismiss an indictment or a motion for a change of venue.
• United States v. Hamm
  659 F.2d 624· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 29×
  The court concurred that the prosecutor's actions, while overreaching, were not against the public interest given the circumstances and the defendant's subsequent honorable course of action.
• United States v. Wilson
  732 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or procedural decisions, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• Truchinski v. United States
  393 F.2d 627· 8th Cir.· 1968-04-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a) by using wire communication facilities to transmit information assisting in the placing of bets, and that the defendant's motions regarding grand jury min
• Elkins v. United States
  266 F.2d 588· 9th Cir.· 1959-04-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendants' specifications of error lacked merit, affirming the district court's judgments and denial of post-trial motions.
• Quinn v. United States
  203 F.2d 20· D.C. Cir.· 1952-12-19 ·cited 24×
  A witness may claim the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by adopting the language of another witness, provided the adoption is personal and clear. The case is remanded for a trial court determination on whether the defendant effectively asserted this privilege
• United States v. Olando Johnson
  953 F.2d 110· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the offense of felon in possession of a firearm, absent aggravating circumstances charged in the indictment, is not a per se crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, requiring resentencing. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of pretrial motion
• United States v. Chapman
  559 F.2d 402· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred in ordering the government to return copies of legally obtained materials, and that the denial of injunctive relief against tax assessments was proper.
• United States v. Jodene Lee Carnes
  618 F.2d 68· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the denial of motions for judgment of acquittal, to dismiss an indictment, and to strike testimony are not final decisions immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• United States v. Bruzgo
  373 F.2d 383· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-10 ·cited 20×
  A prosecutor's improper comment regarding a defendant's silence does not automatically require a mistrial if the trial judge emphatically corrects the error.
• Franano v. United States
  303 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1962-06-13 ·cited 20×
  Issues previously decided on direct appeal cannot be raised in a subsequent motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
• United States v. Marzgliano
  588 F.2d 395· 3d Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers was not violated because the transfer was under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, but reversed the denial of a hearing on the voluntariness of the guilty plea based on alleged attorney misrepresentations.
• Ringel v. State
  352 So. 2d 88· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-07-01 ·cited 18×
  Ringel appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment charging him as an adult under Florida's juvenile transfer statute. The court affirms, holding that armed robbery under Section 812.13(2)(a) is punishable by life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, thereby satisfy
• Universal Milk Bottle Serv., Inc. v. United States
  188 F.2d 959· 6th Cir.· 1951-04-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that motions to dismiss an indictment based on factual allegations being untrue, rather than failing to state an offense, are improper under Rule 12 and raise issues for trial.
• United States v. Sims
  845 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for recusal, dismissal of the indictment, or suppression of evidence, and that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient.
• United States v. Arvin
  900 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 15×
  A depiction of a minor need not be obscene to be considered a 'lascivious exhibition' under child pornography statutes, and the term 'lascivious' is a question of fact for the jury.
• United States v. Dennis James Banks
  682 F.2d 841· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order denying dismissal for vindictive prosecution as to Dennis Banks, Russ Redner, and Kenneth Moses Loud Hawk, and that the dismissal of counts I-V against Ka-Mook Banks was erroneous based on the Supreme Co
• United States v. Barker
  675 F.2d 1055· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction, but the concurring opinion expresses reservations about the application of the concurrent sentence doctrine.
• State v. Brooks
  388 So. 2d 1291· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-09-30 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Sanders
  462 F.2d 122· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the conviction under Count Two is vacated and remanded for dismissal, but the conviction under Count One is affirmed.
• United States v. Weber
  197 F.2d 237· 2d Cir.· 1952-06-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to dismiss the indictment, in denying the request for grand jury minutes, or in denying a mistrial, as the evidence presented was sufficient and proper.
• State v. Nadean O. McARTHUR
  296 So. 2d 97· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-06-14 ·cited 13×
  Florida addressed whether grand jury proceedings must be recorded as a matter of law. The trial court dismissed a first-degree murder indictment based on the state's failure to have a court reporter present during grand jury testimony. The appellate court reversed, holding that F
• Lisak v. State
  433 So. 2d 487· Fla.· 1983-01-27 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a minor's guilty plea to a delinquency petition for a capital or life felony offense within 21 days of arrest is void ab initio and does not bar subsequent prosecution as an adult, because the juvenile court lacks statutory jurisdiction to cond
• United States v. Shropshire
  498 F.2d 137· 6th Cir.· 1974-06-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a motion to strike the jury panel, dismissing the indictment, suppressing evidence, or limiting cross-examination, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Marra
  481 F.2d 1196· 6th Cir.· 1973-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficiently specific and that the defendant was not misled into providing incriminating evidence by IRS agents, thus affirming the denial of his pretrial motions.
• Soper v. United States
  220 F.2d 158· 9th Cir.· 1955-03-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment and the overruling of objections to testimony regarding the weapon were proper, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.