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 the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentence enhancement for firearm possession because it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the drug offense.
-
The court held that while a defendant's voluntary drug ingestion may not automatically excuse absence, the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding without sufficient inquiry into the circumstances of the defendant's absence and by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the car and apartment, and that the scope of cross-examination and admission of fingerprint evidence were proper. The court also affirmed the conviction based on a Pinkerton
-
The court held that co-conspirator statements were admissible and that Zavala lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute as applied to others.
-
The court held that while the limitation on cross-examination of the government's witness was proper, the exclusion of the defense witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion and substantially prejudicial.
-
The court held that the seizure of the defendant's shoulderbag was justified by reasonable suspicion, and thus the evidence found within it was admissible.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence or the motion to reveal the identity of the confidential informant, and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the in camera proceeding.
-
Pre-indictment delay did not violate due process as the defendant failed to show actual prejudice, and post-indictment delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act due to the defendant's evasion and procedural delays.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in jury instructions, search and seizure, or prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that a district court errs by accepting conceded Brady material and failing to disclose it or determine its discoverability. The prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland cannot be shifted to the court.
-
The court held that even if the warrantless arrest and seizure were unlawful, the error was harmless because sufficient independent evidence supported the conviction.
-
The court held that warrantless arrests and searches within a third party's home were justified by exigent circumstances, and that the indictments sufficiently stated the operative time periods for the alleged conspiracies.
-
The court held that the trial court had the authority to submit a lesser-included offense to the jury even after granting a motion for acquittal on the greater offense, and that doing so did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also found sufficient evidence to suppo
-
The court held that the second stop of the defendant constituted an illegal arrest because it was not supported by probable cause and was a successive stop based on the same information. The defendant's subsequent disclaimer of luggage was tainted by this illegal arrest.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the defendant's residence, and the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights was not clearly erroneous, and thus, the confession was admissible.
-
The court held that the government can use a criminal defendant's statements made in a pre-trial bail hearing to prove guilt at trial, contrary to established precedent.
-
The court held that the alleged hearsay evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt and that the record did not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike testimony or in its jury instructions, as the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from discovery violations and the court's comments did not shift the burden of proof.
-
The court held that the Government's failure to fully disclose the details of the plea agreement during the Rule 11 proceedings required reversal and permitted the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to order the government to produce the informer, and that any misjoinder of counts was harmless error.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err by not conducting a Jackson v. Denno hearing because the defendant waived the right to such a hearing by failing to properly challenge the admissibility of his confession. The court also held that collateral estoppel did not bar tes
-
The court held that the appellants' convictions were valid, rejecting claims regarding Miranda warnings, border searches, voir dire questions, expert testimony, and parole term provisions.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Gardner's conviction for simple possession, and reversed Le Boulanger's conspiracy convictions due to lack of substantial evidence for a third conspirator.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial on Counts III and V, denying the motion to suppress evidence, or in its sentencing determinations.
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to search the vehicle's trunk was voluntary and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of knowledge of the hidden cocaine.
-
The court held that the investigative stop, particularly the drawing of a weapon, was not justified by the specific articulable facts and thus exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry stop.
-
The court held that the search of the ceiling aperture was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that pre-trial motions to suppress evidence were properly denied, including evidence obtained from pen registers, wiretaps, warrantless arrests, and searches, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding continuances or j
-
-
Inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate a conviction if there is sufficient evidence for the conviction, and supplemental jury instructions were not reversibly deficient.
-
The court held that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction, that sufficient evidence supported his convictions for conspiracy and distribution, and that denial of his pre-trial discovery motion was not prejudicial.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict and that the jury's differing verdicts on the two counts were not grounds for reversal.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Commission's prescribed sentencing steps are inconsistent with the governing statute, and that the alleged aggravating circumstances were not adequately considered by the Commission.
-
The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of her bag, rendering the evidence admissible. However, the court remanded the issue of whether the initial encounter constituted an illegal seizure.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary, the evidence was sufficient to support the firearm conviction, the trial court's jury instructions were adequate, the 1988 search was lawful, and the sentence enhancement under t
-
The court held that while the district court erred in including uncertain prior drug quantities for sentencing, this error was harmless because the sentencing range remained the same. The court also held that the defendant's role as a courier did not automatically entitle her to
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional and that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is sufficient for sentencing fact-finding.
-
The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing, finding that while the admission of a codefendant's statement was erroneous and violated the confrontation clause, it did not constitute plain error requiring reversal due to sufficient independent evidence. Prior acts
-
The court held that the admission of a photograph of a defendant holding a firearm was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug conspiracy and related offenses.
-
The court held that pregnancy, marital relationship, the effect of a spouse's sentence, and the lack of a local halfway house are not legally justified reasons for a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
899 F.2d 135·
1st Cir.·
1990-03-30
·cited 32×
The court held that admitting evidence of prior drug convictions was an error because it was unfairly prejudicial and not properly admissible under Rule 404(b).
-
The court held that the plain view seizure of a package was not warranted without a particularized basis for suspecting drug involvement.
-
The court held that experienced officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain the defendant based on a totality of the circumstances, and that a subsequent search warrant was validly issued.
-
The court held that the jury's finding of a single conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the absence of an objection to jury selection by a magistrate meant reversal was not required under Gomez v. United States. The court also found no abuse of discretion in
-
The court held that the border patrol agents had lawful grounds to stop and search the vehicle, and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions.
-
The court affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentencing guidelines are constitutional and that the district court did not err in calculating the offense level or refusing a downward departure.
-
The court held that even if admitting evidence of the defendant's flight was an abuse of discretion, it did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights, and therefore the conviction is affirmed.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting partially inaudible tape recordings and transcripts, nor in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. However, the court reversed the conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on severance, sufficiency of evidence, Jencks Act, evidentiary matters, jury instructions, jury misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, or ineffective assistance of counsel.