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 appellant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the heroin by turning it over to a third party and that the district court correctly denied a motion to grant immunity to a prospective defense witness.
-
-
-
The court held that the jury instructions were proper, and evidence of a prior offense was admissible, because the defendant need not know the specific type of controlled substance, only that it was a controlled substance, and the prior offense was relevant to his knowledge claim
-
The court held that expert testimony on heroin use was admissible and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy and drug offenses.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence despite chain of custody questions, in allowing the government's case agent to remain in the courtroom, or in admitting expert testimony based on a manufacturer's sample, and that the defendant
-
The court held that the twenty-minute detention of the appellants' luggage, based on a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and did not require probable cause.
-
The court held that the Government did not waive its right to challenge the defendants' standing to contest the searches, and that only Hansen could challenge the search of room 241, only Means could challenge the search of room 242, and each defendant could challenge the search
-
The court held that successive state and federal prosecutions are permissible under the dual sovereignty doctrine, and that a conspiracy conviction does not preclude a subsequent prosecution for a substantive offense arising from the same transaction. The court also affirmed the
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants' claims regarding undisclosed plea agreements, denial of pretrial motions, and evidentiary rulings lacked merit.
-
The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause and was not overbroad, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the conspiracy convictions.
-
The court held that separate sentences may not be imposed for offenses arising from the same transaction, even if convictions are affirmed.
-
The court held that the trial judge's instructions were proper, Cheung's double jeopardy and delay claims were meritless, and the admission of his statements, while potentially erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lai's claims regarding interpreter use and the handl
-
549 F.2d 264·
2d Cir.·
1977-02-07
·cited 30×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction and that any variance did not affect the substantial rights of the accused. Claims of prejudicial delay, double jeopardy, severance, and prosecutorial misconduct were also rejected.
-
The court held that the joinder of federal and D.C. Code charges in a single indictment and trial in the District of Columbia is constitutional and does not violate equal protection, even if penalties differ.
-
The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the government's failure to disclose exculpatory information about an informant was deliberate or negligent, and to determine compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109 regarding the entry of the premi
-
-
The court affirmed the jury convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
-
499 F.2d 1220·
2d Cir.·
1974-07-05
·cited 30×
The court held that a confession was voluntary despite agents advising the defendant that cooperation would be beneficial, and that the government did not waive its right to introduce an earlier oral confession.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that the Sentencing Guidelines were applied constitutionally.
-
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not newly discovered evidence under Rule 33 when the appellant was aware of the facts at the time of trial. The court also affirmed the sentencing decisions.
-
The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony for background and expert testimony on intent to distribute was not plain error, as the defendant failed to properly preserve objections.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing because the district court's upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was unreasonable and lacked proper notice to the defendant.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's vague explanation for striking the sole black juror was insufficient to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination, and the district court erred in requiring a pattern of strikes to establish such a case.
-
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to an entrapment instruction if they demonstrate predisposition to commit the crime, and that consecutive sentences for possession with intent to distribute and distribution are permissible if there is independent evidence of prior
-
The court held that the opening of a fiberglass container constituted a search requiring a warrant, as the contents were not obvious and did not meet the single-purpose container exception.
-
The court held that the defendant's actions at the airport security checkpoint, including his attempt to withdraw consent to a search and subsequent flight, provided probable cause for his arrest and the seizure of his bag.
-
A defendant's disavowal of ownership and privacy interest in an item at the time of a search negates a reasonable expectation of privacy, precluding suppression of evidence found therein.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's car was constitutional as it was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession.
-
-
The court should not resolve sentencing departure issues on appeal, as this infringes on the district court's discretion.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court properly calculated the offense level based on the negotiated amount of cocaine and that the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's comment during rebuttal, while unartful, did not so infect the trial with unfairness as to violate due process, and that a special verdict on drug quantity was not required. The court also affirmed the application of Sentencing Guidelines and va
-
A warrantless entry into an apartment was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, even if law enforcement agents' actions contributed to the exigency, as long as those actions were lawful.
-
The court held that Franco was not entrapped and that Garcia's sentence properly included the half-kilo of cocaine based on his co-conspirator's actions.
-
The court held that the defendant consented to the encounter with officers, and the detention of his bag was justified by reasonable suspicion. However, the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that while the prosecutor's rebuttal argument was improper, it was not prejudicial enough to deny the defendants a fair trial, and that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or sentencing enhancements.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pretrial motion for severance, and any prejudice from the co-defendant's attorney's summation did not rise to the level of plain error.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, finding sufficient evidence for conviction but issues with the original sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellants and that the trial court did not err in denying requests to poll the jury regarding mid-trial publicity.
-
The admission of evidence of uncharged drug offenses to prove the continuing series element of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charge was improper because the indictment failed to provide adequate notice of such proof, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs found in the house.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the defendant's claims regarding the admission of prior bad acts evidence, the completeness of the appellate record, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause and that the trial judge's conduct did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, informant testimony, jury instructions, admission of statements, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that the appellant was guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, at least as an aider and abetter.
-
The court held that the admission of inadmissible hearsay testimony, which was then emphasized in closing arguments, denied the defendant a fair trial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the Sierra Blanca checkpoint is the functional equivalent of the border and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
The court held that giving a "conscious avoidance" jury instruction was prejudicial error because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant deliberately avoided learning the truth.