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 encounter between the defendant and DEA agents at the airport did not constitute an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the detention of his luggage was supported by reasonable suspicion.
-
The court held that the acquittal on the interstate travel charge did not collaterally estop the government from using testimony related to the possession charge, as not all facts presented were necessarily decided by the jury.
-
The court held that proceeding with a trial in absentia was not an abuse of discretion, a jury instruction on flight was harmless error, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that tape recordings and their transcripts, even in a foreign language, are admissible if properly authenticated and that sending transcripts to the jury room is permissible within the trial court's discretion, especially when the jury does not understand the langu
-
The court held that the trial court properly excluded psychiatric evidence for a diminished capacity defense and properly denied the use of a chalkboard, and that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause.
-
The Omnibus Crime Control Act applies to Puerto Rico, and evidence admissible under federal law cannot be excluded because it would be inadmissible under Puerto Rico law.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing an entrapment instruction for Annie Griego, but affirmed the conviction of Gloria Williams. The court also found no Speedy Trial Act violation or abuse of discretion in excluding certain testimony.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Samad of importation and possession with intent to distribute heroin, but sufficient to convict Hanan of both offenses. The court also held that a prosecutor's improper comment during closing arguments did not constitut
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, the co-conspirator's statements were properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
-
A stipulated trial is not equivalent to a guilty plea requiring Rule 11 inquiries unless the defendant admits guilt and waives all issues. Constructive possession can be established by dominion and control, even in jointly occupied premises where contraband is in plain view.
-
The third Miranda warning was inadequate, and statements made thereafter were involuntary, thus they should have been excluded.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop, search of the shopping bag, and subsequent arrests were lawful, and that post-arrest statements were not tainted by prior Miranda violations.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a specific jury instruction regarding an informer's potential drug addiction, denying motions to suppress recordings, disclose an informer's identity, or sever the trial, and that pre-indictment delay did not violate due
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's motion for acquittal, refusing an absent-witness instruction, admitting evidence of the cocaine's street value, or in the instructions given.
-
The court held that the defendant waived objections to the admission of statements regarding prior cooperation by refusing a curative instruction, and that offers to cooperate made without condition are not inadmissible plea bargaining statements. The court also found the trial j
-
The court held that the defendant was not denied his right to counsel and that other asserted errors were either waived or without merit.
-
The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by independent surveillance, provided probable cause for Costano's arrest, and that the admission of Costano's statement against Gonzalez violated Bruton v. United States because it was not harmless error.
-
The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding misjoinder, admission of hearsay, pre-arrest delay, and failure to hold an identification hearing were without merit.
-
The court held that a variance between the indictment charging one conspiracy and evidence showing two does not require reversal if it does not affect substantial rights, and that striking an overt act from the indictment is not an impermissible amendment.
-
The court held that the trial judge's failure to inform counsel of rulings on jury instructions prior to closing arguments violated Rule 30, requiring reversal and a new trial.
-
The court held that a canine sniff of a vehicle's exterior, when the vehicle is lawfully impounded, does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The impoundment itself was a reasonable exercise of the community caretaking function.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the jury verdicts and sentences were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the district court did not err in its rulings on plea agreements, evidence sufficiency, severance, sequestration, or sentencing.
-
The court held that the defendant's "CIA intelligence gathering" defense was invalid as a matter of law and that the defendant failed to properly raise a separate defense of lacking specific intent to distribute cocaine at the trial level.
-
The court held that the initial encounter with the defendant was consensual, and the subsequent investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, making the subsequent admissions and arrest lawful.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's comment was not an improper comment on the defendant's silence, the jury instructions were adequate, and the admission of the fuel log was not barred by Rule 11(e)(6).
-
The court held that the Customs search of the package was lawful, and the appellant's subsequent incriminating statements were made after a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.
-
The court held that the information in the wiretap affidavit was not stale, the amended wiretap order was properly obtained, and the Florida Attorney General had the authority to authorize the wiretap application.
-
The court held that appellants' challenges to jury instructions and the denial of a hearing on standing were waived or barred by prior rulings, and that the government's failure to produce psychiatric reports did not violate Brady or the Sixth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court's jury instruction on deliberate ignorance was deficient because it failed to convey the requirement that the defendant must be aware of the high probability of the existence of the fact they are deliberately avoiding knowledge of.
-
The court held that evidence seized during a drug transaction at a defendant's home was admissible under consent search doctrine, searches of wallets incident to arrest were valid, the jury instructions on entrapment were sufficient, and evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of d
-
The court held that the government had a sufficient prosecutorial interest in delaying the unsealing of an indictment to avoid tipping off other defendants, and that the defendant did not suffer substantial actual prejudice from this delay.
-
The court should have suppressed evidence obtained via a search warrant based on a knowingly false affidavit, reversing the conviction.
-
A felon juror's concealed status, discovered after a jury trial, requires reversal and a new trial because the juror's disqualification is not based on bias and cannot be adequately assessed post-trial.
-
The court concurred that the impoundment was unreasonable due to investigatory pretext, despite the reasonableness of the impoundment itself under the circumstances.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the admission of $34,000 found in a co-conspirator's apartment was not plain error. The court also affirmed the denial of a sentence redu
-
The court affirmed the sentence and plea, finding the evidence sufficient to establish the relevant drug quantity for sentencing, the district court's procedural errors under Rule 32 did not warrant resentencing, and the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was
-
The court held that the affidavit for the search warrant established probable cause, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and firearm use, and the district court did not err in denying severance or refusing jury instructi
-
917 F.2d 1370·
5th Cir.·
1990-11-09
·cited 24×
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that any discovery violations were harmless and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, with the substantive possession conviction affirmed under the Pinkerton doctrine.
-
The court held that questions asked by an unknown caller are not hearsay because they do not assert anything, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict Lewis of conspiracy.
-
The court held that the type of firearm and whether it was loaded are not grounds for sentencing departure under the applicable guideline, as these factors are either explicitly rejected or already accounted for.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences for drug trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy offenses, finding no errors in search and seizure, courtroom security, severance, excluded evidence, closing arguments, or sentencing guideline applications.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Lieutenant Dailey's expert testimony regarding countersurveillance and document interpretation, nor in rereading trial testimony to the jury.
-
The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) were without merit, and affirmed the district court's imposition of the minimum sentence.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, finding probable cause for the arrest and lawful seizure of the bag, and that jury instructions and Speedy Trial Act calculations were proper.
-
While not strictly forbidden, judges are generally advised against defining reasonable doubt as attempts often create more confusion than clarity.
-
The government's violation of the plea agreement by introducing evidence of cocaine found in the house, contrary to the agreement's stipulation, entitles the defendant to specific performance of the agreement, requiring resentencing.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating the Travel Act must be reversed due to insufficient evidence of a 'business enterprise,' but affirmed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the defendant was not denied a fair trial by the mid-trial sentencing of a co-conspirator, nor were tape recordings improperly admitted or used.
-
The court affirmed all convictions, holding that wiretap warrants were properly issued, the government was not required to prove the specific isomer of cocaine involved before 1984, post-arrest statements were properly excluded, and consent to search was voluntary.