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 trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because sufficient independent evidence established the conspiracy and the defendant's participation.
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions for importing and possessing cocaine were valid, and that the convictions did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
-
The court held that the government failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest, and therefore, the evidence and statements obtained from the arrest should have been suppressed.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery, continuances, witness testimony, or cross-examination limitations, but remanded for a Batson inquiry into potential jury exclusion.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances and that while the admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statement was improper bootstrapping, it was harmless error due to defense counsel's failure to object on that ground
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
-
A law enforcement agent's questioning of an individual, even when accompanied by a request to step aside, does not constitute a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment unless a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
A third party's statement inculpating the accused is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) if it is against the declarant's penal interest and corroborated by circumstances indicating trustworthiness, provided it does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror, the search warrant affidavit was sufficient, and the insanity issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
-
The court held that joint representation did not create an actual conflict of interest, the prosecutor's remark was not reversible error, and the firearm possession was sufficiently proven as unlawful under state law.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for sanctions and continuance.
-
-
The court held that the currency found in the toilet tank was admissible under the plain view doctrine, as the officers were lawfully on the premises, the discovery was inadvertent, and the incriminating nature of the bag was immediately apparent.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to disclose the informant's identity, nor was there a prejudicial variance between the arrest warrant and indictment, nor insufficient evidence of possession.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the identity of the substance as cocaine and that the nondisclosure of certain statements did not warrant a new trial.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute is affirmed, as his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not triggered by the state arrest.
-
The court held that oral testimony supplementing a search warrant affidavit is permissible under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c) as it existed at the time, and that a warrantless automobile search can be constitutional under exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant was a participant in the conspiracy, and his actions were more indicative of an accessory after the fact.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's summation was within permissible bounds, despite defense counsel's prior improper remarks.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination.
-
The court held that evidence of a subsequent, similar transaction is admissible to rebut an entrapment defense and show predisposition, and that the trial court did not err in denying a subpoena for an informer who could not be located.
-
Information gained during a valid consensual search provided probable cause to sustain the validity of a continuation of that search beyond the scope of consent.
-
The court held that a person blocked in a train roomette by three police officers was not detained within the meaning of Terry because there was no intent to prevent the defendant from leaving.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment or in admitting expert testimony and transcripts. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove one appellant's guilt of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the officers' warrantless entry into the Mabry residence was justified by exigent circumstances arising after the arrest of a drug courier, and that a subsequent protective sweep was permissible.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, thus lacking standing to challenge the search and seizure of cocaine found therein.
-
The court held that the trial court's unsolicited jury instruction concerning plea bargains of unindicted co-conspirators did not prejudice the appellant.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior drug conviction for impeachment purposes and that the hearsay statements were admissible.
-
The Eleventh Circuit reversed convictions for cocaine distribution against Hawkins and McCree, finding that the government's lead case agent committed plain error by providing extensive improper expert testimony that speculated about the meaning of intercepted communications, int
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary and that the jury instructions were adequate, affirming the conviction.
-
The Ninth Circuit held that a 'deliberate ignorance' instruction was inappropriate because the evidence only supported actual knowledge or complete lack of knowledge, not conscious avoidance of the truth. The court reversed the conviction due to the improper instruction.
-
The court affirmed Allen's convictions but vacated his sentence for resentencing, and vacated Pigrum's conviction due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the traffic stop detention was reasonable, the search did not exceed consent, pre-arrest statements were not custodial interrogation, the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, and the sentence did not constitute cruel and
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, reasonable suspicion developed, and Simmons's reaction to the discovery of drugs on his companion provided probable cause for his search, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the encounter between the police and the defendant did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because a reasonable person would have felt free to leave, and therefore the district court properly denied the motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the district court departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines without providing adequate, detailed reasons and without justifying the extent of the departure by linking it to the Guidelines' structure.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in departing from the sentencing guidelines based on the quantity of drugs and the defendant's role in the offense, as these factors were not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission for simple possession.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting her attorney's performance, and that the jury instruction regarding a 'measurable amount' of cocaine was proper.
-
881 F.2d 733·
9th Cir.·
1989-08-03
·cited 30×
The court held that the jury instructions for the firearm charge were not plain error, the evidence was sufficient for the conspiracy and firearm convictions, an aider and abettor of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is subject to mandatory minimum penalties, and the government's use of a pe
-
The court held that the sentencing judge did not exceed discretion by not departing from the guideline range, as the asserted bases for departure were already accounted for in the guideline calculation.
-
The court held that the defendants' arrests and searches were based on probable cause, their consent to search was voluntary, and their convictions were not affected by minor discrepancies in the indictment language or potential attorney conflicts of interest.
-
A guilty plea waives a due process claim of outrageous government conduct if establishing the claim requires further proceedings beyond the face of the indictment or record at the time of the plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion by deferring a ruling on the motio
-
The dissenting judge believes that permitting magistrates to conduct jury voir dire in felony cases raises serious constitutional questions and should be prohibited by supervisory power.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court properly submitted the entrapment defense to the jury.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on continuances, probable cause, search warrants, sufficiency of evidence, hearsay, prosecutorial comments, severance, or witness retaliation charges.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions for appellants Quarterman, Prather, and McTeer, but reversed Jenkins' conviction due to insufficient evidence. The court also found no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof o
-
The court's opinion is concurred with, but the precise effect of joining lesser convictions with a greater conviction is unclear.
-
The court held that prior conspiracy convictions for one ongoing smuggling operation do not bar prosecution for substantive offenses related to that operation, but they do bar prosecution for separate conspiracy charges arising from the same single conspiracy.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, illegal searches, or improper testimony, and sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts.