Overt Act Requirement For Conspiracy

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

• Herman v. United States
  289 F.2d 362· 5th Cir.· 1961-04-12 ·cited 184×
  The court held that the trial judge's active participation did not render the trial unfair, and the evidence was sufficient to convict on the substantive charge, but the conspiracy conviction failed due to the acquittal of co-conspirators.
• 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. Bermudez
  526 F.2d 89· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-06 ·cited 142×
  The court held that an indictment for conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require an overt act, and that post-conspiracy evidence, evidence of prior offenses for impeachment, and expert testimony on drug identification are admissible under certain circumstances.
• Bennie Lenard v. Robert Argento & Joseph Sansone
  699 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 124×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict against the Village of Melrose Park for failure to train or supervise its officers, and reversed the conspiracy to obstruct justice conviction due to lack of an overt act. However, it affirmed the j
• United States v. Mayes
  512 F.2d 637· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 123×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding of a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or the handling of peremptory challenges and severance motions.
• United States v. Mayo
  721 F.2d 1084· 7th Cir.· 1983-10-27 ·cited 84×
  The court held that venue for a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 is proper in any district where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred, and that sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act requires the defendant to be under 26 at the time of conviction.
• United States v. Benton Franklin Thomas and Joseph Thomas Oliveti
  567 F.2d 638· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 963, and that the government's conduct was not so outrageous as to deny due process or constitute entrapment.
• 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.
• Leyvas v. United States
  371 F.2d 714· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 71×
  The court held that while the statutory amendment increasing the mandatory minimum sentence applied, the district court could have achieved the same result of crediting time served pending appeal by making the sentence concurrent, and thus the case should be remanded for consider
• United States v. Nicoll
  664 F.2d 1308· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that venue was proper, co-conspirator statements were admissible, entrapment was not preserved, police conduct was not egregious, and withdrawal did not preclude conviction.
• United States v. Carmine Persico
  832 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the jury, not the judge, must make the factual determination of when criminal conduct occurred when it is critical to a double jeopardy defense. The court also held that a RICO conspiracy conviction requires proof that a specific conspiracy to commit a predica
• United States v. Bates
  600 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-08 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning co-conspirators' prior acts was proper, the jury instructions were adequate, and the refusal to allow defense counsel to testify was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Coia
  719 F.2d 1120· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-17 ·cited 59×
  A RICO conspiracy charge does not require proof of an overt act, and the statute of limitations begins to run when the conspiracy is complete, which is when its purposes are abandoned or accomplished.
• Blumenthal v. United States
  158 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1946-12-16 ·cited 53×
  A conspiracy to violate the Emergency Price Control Act and its regulations is a distinct offense indictable under the general conspiracy statute, even if the Act itself makes agreement to violate it a misdemeanor.
• United States v. Ricardo
  619 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that extraterritorial jurisdiction attaches for conspiracy if intended territorial effects are shown, even without an overt act in the U.S., and that evidence seized and admitted was lawful.
• United States v. Ransom F. Shoup, II
  608 F.2d 950· 3d Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 46×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings that the defendant conspired to defraud the United States and endeavored to obstruct justice, and that the indictment provided sufficient notice of the charges.
• United States v. Clark J. Umentum
  547 F.2d 987· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the conspiracy statute 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require proof of an overt act, and that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, fairly stated the law and did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Elledge
  723 F.2d 864· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana, and that the admission of evidence regarding a death threat to a government witness was harmless error.
• United States v. Covos
  872 F.2d 805· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the use of a pen register was lawful, the admission of coconspirator hearsay was proper, and 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require proof of an overt act. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Donahue
  539 F.2d 1131· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal entered after a jury verdict of guilty, provided that correction of the acquittal does not require a retrial. The court affirmed the acquittal on the wire fraud count but reversed
• United States v. Charnay
  537 F.2d 341· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the requisite intent and scienter under Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, despite the petition for rehearing claiming conflict.
• United States v. Adamo
  534 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 40×
  The mailing of vouchers to credit card companies by merchants who knew the credit card users were using stolen cards is sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to violate the mail fraud statute.
• State v. Trafficante
  136 So. 2d 264· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-12-20 ·cited 40×
  The State appealed the trial court's order quashing a conspiracy count and granting a new trial after a jury acquitted defendants on four bribery counts but convicted them on a fifth count charging conspiracy to commit bribery and lottery violations. The court held that the fifth
• United States v. Rose
  590 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 39×
  A conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 is valid even if the intended substantive crime (transporting stolen goods under 18 U.S.C. § 2314) was impossible to complete because the goods were never actually stolen, as long as there was an agreement and an overt act.
• LaPOLLA v. State
  504 So. 2d 1353· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-04-01 ·cited 38×
  Appellants Anderson and LaPolla were convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine following an undercover operation conducted by narcotics investigator Dennis Gavalier. The court affirmed their conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence of negotiated drug transactions, rep
• United States v. Dempsey
  733 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 38×
  A conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require the indictment to allege an overt act, and the court affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Brown
  692 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on all essential elements of the substantive offense in Count Eight, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial on that count. However, the court affirmed the convictions on the remaining
• United States v. Morales
  677 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 34×
  A conspiracy conviction will be reversed if the jury's acquittal on substantive counts, combined with jury instructions limiting overt acts to those alleged, amounts to a finding that no overt act occurred.
• United States v. Sarno
  456 F.2d 875· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for conspiracy and the substantive drug offense did not violate double jeopardy, and that hearsay declarations of co-conspirators were admissible.
• Ladner v. United States
  168 F.2d 771· 5th Cir.· 1948-06-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that venue was proper and that the denial of a bill of particulars and continuance did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
• Flittie v. Solem
  775 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-14 ·cited 30×
• United States v. BEY
  736 F.2d 891· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 846, does not require proof of an overt act to sustain a conspiracy conviction, and that the jury instructions on aiding and abetting were not plain error.
• United States v. Arloha Mae Pinto
  838 F.2d 426· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-29 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, co-conspirator hearsay was properly admitted, there was no fatal variance, severance was not required, the statute of limitations had not expired, and the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Clark
  928 F.2d 639· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of previously prosecuted conduct does not bar a subsequent prosecution if it only tends to prove an element of the second offense, rather than establishing the entirety of an essential element. It also held that overt acts are not required elements fo
• 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.
• United States v. Root
  366 F.2d 377· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment, finding that the indictment sufficiently alleged conspiracy, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice, and that the government was not required to set forth the exact false testimony verbatim.
• Freeman v. United States
  146 F.2d 978· 6th Cir.· 1945-01-22 ·cited 23×
  The judgment of conviction and sentence should be affirmed because a conspiracy is a distinct offense from the crime it aims to achieve, and the indictment alone, without a bill of exceptions, is sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Wilson
  154 F.2d 802· 2d Cir.· 1946-02-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding overt acts were sufficient and that the evidence presented was adequate to support the conviction.
• United States v. N.Y. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.
  137 F.2d 459· 5th Cir.· 1943-07-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while some allegations in the indictment were inflammatory, dismissal was premature, and the indictment sufficiently alleged venue and conspiracy. However, it was fatally defective as to two defendants due to a lack of factual allegations connecting them to th
• United States v. Offutt
  127 F.2d 336· D.C. Cir.· 1942-04-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge conspiracy, reversing the trial court's sustaining of the demurrer.
• United States v. Pumphrey
  831 F.2d 307· D.C. Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require proof of an overt act to establish conspiracy, and that the trial judge's jury instructions regarding a lesser included offense were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Strauss
  283 F.2d 155· 5th Cir.· 1960-10-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that count eight of the indictment was legally sufficient to charge a conspiracy to violate bankruptcy laws, even if it failed to adequately charge mail fraud.
• United States v. Sanchez
  790 F.2d 1561· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction, and that the admission of certain evidence and the informant's fee arrangement did not violate due process.
• United States v. McKINNEY
  954 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that presenting an overt act that occurred after the conspiracy's objective was achieved was not plain error because the jury likely convicted based on other valid overt acts or evidence of the conspiracy. The court also held that evidence of the Aryan Brotherhood'
• United States v. Ahumada-Avalos
  875 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence were valid, affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States v. Donald Pelfrey (86-3166)
  822 F.2d 628· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant charged with conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not need to have committed an overt act to be convicted, and that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated.
• In re the Extradition OF Marie Louise Russell v. United States
  789 F.2d 801· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the alleged crimes were extraditable offenses under the treaty, satisfying the dual criminality requirement, and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Sassi
  966 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 12×
  A conspiracy conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Nobuo Kiriki
  756 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed to establish a conspiracy between Kiriki and Matsumoto to transport stolen property and export firearms, and that the overt acts were in furtherance of this agreement.
• United States v. Isaksson
  744 F.2d 574· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government introduced sufficient evidence to establish that income was under-reported on the tax returns in issue, and that the conspiracy conviction is consistent with the jury's finding of acquittal on other counts.