56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that prison inmates impliedly consent to the monitoring of their telephone calls, and that the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute does not apply to those who aid and abet the leader of the enterprise.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy and that the exclusion of photographs was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the initial stop and subsequent detention of the defendants were lawful, and the search of the vehicle, including the suitcase, was valid based on consent.
-
The court held that the post-trial in camera proceeding with a confidential informant was proper and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
-
The court errs in narrowly prescribing factors district courts may consider in sentencing, misinterpreting Congress's language regarding the sentencing guidelines.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, finding the district court improperly applied the Sentencing Guidelines by basing the sentence on drug transactions not proven to be part of the same course of conduct as the convicted offenses.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress, limited defense witness testimony, excluded polygraph evidence, and correctly refused to investigate agents' conduct.
-
The dissent argues that the majority erred in finding no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred, asserting that the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a potentially biased juror for cause, that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and that sentencing calculations were proper.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for importation and possession of cocaine, and that the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on false trial testimony was proper.
-
The court held that the district court did not commit clear error in including quantities of cocaine not charged in the indictment, but established by a preponderance of the evidence and found to be part of the same course of conduct, in calculating the defendant's base offense l
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence, but remanded the case for a hearing on the Batson challenge regarding the jury selection process.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary and instructional rulings.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the cocaine, as the defendant's consent to the sniff test was voluntary and not the product of an unlawful detention, and that the prosecutor's argument regarding the defendant's assertion of Fourth Amendm
-
The court held that the DEA officers had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and that her consent to search her bag was voluntary, thus affirming the denial of her motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the evidence obtained from the investigatory stop was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that pre-arrest statements were admissible as the defendant was not in custody, and subsequent statements were admissible as they were voluntary and informed waivers after Miranda warnings. Co-conspirator statements and jury instructions
-
The court held that the defendant was not denied due process, but the special parole term was improperly imposed and the case must be remanded for compliance with Rule 32.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance or the motion to suppress, but erred in failing to make findings on disputed facts in the presentence report.
-
The court held that venue was sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence and that the admission of prior drug transaction testimony was proper as it was inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses. Furthermore, comments made during closing arguments did not consti
-
The dissenting judge argues that the warrantless entry and search were not justified by exigent circumstances, as the officers failed to attempt to obtain a telephone warrant.
-
The court held that the government's attempted pretrial appeal of a non-appealable order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction, and various failures to preserve evidence or disclose information did not violate the defendant's rights or warrant a mistrial or new trial.
-
The court held that the evidence seized from apartment 7F was admissible because the agents had probable cause to arrest Martinez and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
-
The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a mistrial after the government dismissed defendants in the jury's presence, nor was the evidence insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the DEA agents had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop and that the consent to search the suitcase was voluntary, thus affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the border search was reasonable, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the refusal to give a specific 'two hypotheses' jury instruction was not error.
-
The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction, violates the Confrontation Clause if it is powerfully incriminating and the jury cannot be expected to disregard it.
-
The court held that cumulative errors in jury instructions and defense counsel's argument deprived the appellant of a fair trial on the issue of knowledge.
-
The court held that while convictions for distribution and possession with intent to distribute (counts 1 and 2) could stand, separate convictions and sentences for multiple instances of possession with intent to distribute the same substance (counts 3 and 4) were multiplicitous
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to import, importation, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the seizure of the vehicle containing marijuana was unlawful, requiring suppression of that evidence.
-
Sufficient evidence existed to establish intent to distribute cocaine, even if the pure quantity was less than 10 grams, when considering the unusual amount in a prison context, potential resale value, and the defendant's lack of addiction to cocaine.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was legal because the seizing officer had probable cause, and the car's mobility created exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting tape recordings, finding the informant credible, and denying polygraph examinations, affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial, including issues related to a defendant's absence, jury instructions, cross-examination restrictions, and the destruction of evidence.
-
The court held that the government's failure to disclose tape recordings until trial did not constitute reversible error because the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant at the border was lawful, and her convictions for importing and possessing cocaine are affirmed.
-
The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and use of a communication facility, vacated one firearm conviction due to improper dual predicate offenses, and affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct and the refusal of an entrapment instru
-
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) provides an independent basis for criminal liability and does not require an underlying drug-trafficking conviction as a predicate for punishment.
-
The court held that the officers' actions in stopping and searching Laing were reasonable under the circumstances, and that the jury's inconsistent verdicts did not invalidate Martin's conviction.
-
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence, refusing a specific jury instruction, denying a motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, or excluding juror declarations regarding deliberations.
-
The court held that the evidence presented did not raise the issue of entrapment, as there was no indication the defendant's cousin acted as a government agent.
-
The court held that vicarious liability under Pinkerton v. United States is applicable to narcotics distribution conspiracies and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a juvenile adjudication for impeachment purposes.
-
The court held that testimony regarding conversations in an attorney's office was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because a non-client was present and the conversations concerned plans to commit perjury. The court also held that excluding resident aliens from feder
-
The court held that the pre-boarding screening program, including the use of a magnetometer and the FAA Profile, was constitutional and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The search of the defendant's luggage was justified by exceptional circumstances.
-
The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were properly admitted, evidence of prior criminal conduct was admissible, the jury instructions were appropriate, and the sentence for possession of cocaine base was constitutional.
-
The court held that defendants' sentences were improperly enhanced based on crack cocaine amounts not charged in the indictment or proven at trial.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress wiretap evidence, finding probable cause, necessity of surveillance, and proper duration. It also found sufficient evidence for convictions, denied severance, and deemed expert testimony admissio
-
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is a general intent crime and the phrase "in relation to" does not add a substantive element requiring specific intent to use the firearm. The evidence of carrying a pistol to protect drug sale proceeds is sufficient to support a convicti
-
The court held that the district court's finding that the defendant was not a minor participant was not clearly erroneous, and thus no reduction in offense level was warranted.