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 18 U.S.C. § 3109 does not apply to commercial premises like a barbershop, and that the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce rule has less force when applied to businesses. The court also held that the arrest was based on probable cause and was not pretextual.
-
The court should not grant a pseudonym to an appellant who cooperated with the government and now seeks anonymity to avoid predictable consequences.
-
The court held that the DEA agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of her bag, thus affirming the conviction.
-
-
The court held that a warrantless entry to 'secure' premises pending a search warrant is an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from such entry must be suppressed.
-
The court held that McGuire's severance and hearsay objections were properly denied, and Rivera's conviction for conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, but his convictions for distribution and possession were not.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the admission of the voice identification, chemist's report, and driver's license was not erroneous.
-
The court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of a material witness's perjury.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that prior precedent compelled the conclusion that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of constructive possession.
-
The court held that the admission of prior consistent testimony was proper to rebut an attack on credibility, and the jury instruction regarding the defendant's lifestyle was within the court's discretion.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to compel disclosure of an informant's identity, admitting hearsay statements, or denying the entrapment defense as a matter of law.
-
The court held that the defendant's pre-search declaration of contraband did not preclude her conviction for illegal importation, and that her trial counsel was not incompetent.
-
The court held that a conspiracy conviction is valid even if a government informant is an essential participant, and that the 'knock and announce' rule's purpose requirement was excused as a useless gesture under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's attempt to cover up the crime was proper, and that the defendant was not denied due process or effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the district court erred in declaring a mistrial without manifest necessity, thus violating the defendants' double jeopardy rights upon retrial.
-
The court affirmed the drug trafficking convictions but vacated the sentences in part, remanding for re-sentencing due to errors in imposing supervised release terms for offenses committed before November 1, 1987.
-
The court held that evidence of a prior, uncharged drug transaction was admissible as 'inextricably intertwined' with the charged offenses, and that the government's breach of a debriefing agreement required resentencing by a different judge.
-
The court held that the cocaine was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine because the officer's initial intrusion was lawful, the discovery was inadvertent, and he had probable cause to believe the package contained contraband.
-
The court held that Baron's detention in a darkened bedroom constituted a de facto arrest supported by probable cause, and the subsequent black light test was a lawful search incident to that arrest. The court also found that any error in admitting testimony about marijuana-relat
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that any Brady/Giglio implications from undisclosed evidence did not undermine confidence in the out
-
A deposition taken abroad under foreign law, even with procedural differences from U.S. standards, may be admissible in a criminal trial if the defendant had an opportunity for similar cross-examination and the foreign procedures are not so unreliable as to violate fundamental fa
-
The court held that a protective sweep of a residence following a lawful arrest is permissible if officers reasonably believe it is necessary for safety, and that coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible. The court also affirmed the d
-
The court held that the admission of authenticated and enhanced tape recordings and the use of transcripts as a jury aid were not an abuse of discretion, and that the denial of a post-trial hearing on alleged perjury was proper.
-
The court held that the searches of Milian's business premises and home were conducted pursuant to probable cause, exigent circumstances, or valid consent, and thus the suppression of evidence was erroneous.
-
The court held that the defendants' severance claims were properly denied as their defenses were not mutually exclusive and the prosecutor's comments did not impermissibly use post-arrest silence.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the co-conspirator's statement and the cocaine found in the abandoned bag, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in accepting a superseding indictment, amending the bill of particulars, denying continuances, admitting testimony of a witness, or refusing to dismiss the case for lost evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the
-
The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of evidence, and the failure to provide an interpreter did not warrant reversal.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for mistrial or suppression, and the admission of a prior conviction was proper for limited purposes.
-
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
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and that the jury instructions did not contain plain error.
-
The court held that a canine sniff of a garage from a public alley is not a Fourth Amendment search, and the presence of firearms in a drug-trafficking offense can constitute 'use' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if they provide security and confidence. The court also affirmed the distr
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the admission of wiretap evidence or co-conspirator statements, and upholding the sentencing decisions.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of money laundering transactions, denying motions to substitute counsel, or in sentencing enhancements, but must make a finding on the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
-
The court held that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession, as a rational jury could have found the defendants guilty of simple possession but not possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that police officers deputized as federal agents could lawfully execute a wiretap under Oklahoma law, and that evidence of prior convictions could be admitted to show scheme or motive. Enhanced sentences were upheld under the sentencing guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement to the defendant's sentence for possessing firearms during the commission of the drug offense.
-
The court held that the notice requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) do not apply to sentence enhancements under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and the defendant had actual notice of his prior convictions and potential sentence increase.
-
The court held that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause and that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room, making a warrant unnecessary. Furthermore, the search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest and based on voluntary consent, and th
-
The court held that the necessity for police interdiction of drug couriers does not outweigh constitutional standards for police intrusion into ordinary citizens' affairs.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting firearms and coconspirator statements, nor was the evidence insufficient for conviction.
-
The court held that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and within legal limitations, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in limiting defense counsel's closing arguments by threatening to admit prior convictions if the defendant raised the issue of personal drug use.
-
The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction for the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) count and by admitting evidence of other crimes that was not sufficiently probative. However, the erroneous admission of evidence was d
-
The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, the heroin evidence was admissible despite a less-than-perfect chain of custody, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, the court found errors in sentencing due to the misapplica
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants and that the district court did not err in refusing to give a "missing witness" charge against the government.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated because the clock resumed upon the mandate's issuance, not earlier, and that the defendant's prosecution was not barred by a prior plea agreement as the conspiracies were distinct.
-
The court held that federal prosecution was not barred by a prior Puerto Rico court's suppression order, and that consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances were permissible.
-
The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, the inventory search was reasonable, and the challenged evidence was admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.