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 prosecutorial misconduct and hearsay did not prejudice the defendant, and the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements for obstruction of justice and leadership were properly applied.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for severance, admitting post-conspiracy statements, or in its rulings on the admissibility of evidence, as the withheld evidence was either collateral, cumulative, or harmless.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendants, as members of an ongoing drug conspiracy, used the two revolvers in question 'during and in relation to' the drug trafficking offenses.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel or an abuse of discretion in admitting photographs
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute, and that any prejudice from the prosecutor's closing argument was cured by the court's inst
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Mejia, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony regarding secret compartments in a vehicle, a recent trip taken in that vehicle, a DEA surveillance tip, and a drug-sniffing dog's reaction to sei
-
The court held that a defendant cannot withdraw a guilty plea based solely on counsel's erroneous sentencing prediction, and that sentence enhancement for a co-conspirator's weapon possession is appropriate if reasonably foreseeable.
-
The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his trailer and that the search did not exceed the scope of his consent, and that the district court did not err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
-
The court should affirm the district court's judgment of acquittal because the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that a defendant who fails to renew a motion for acquittal after presenting evidence waives the motion, but the conviction can still be reviewed for manifest injustice. The court also held that mere presence at the scene of a crime, without more, is insufficient to
-
The court held that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on drug courier profile characteristics, flight, and incriminating statements, and that the government's failure to disclose the identity of an intermeddler was harmless error. The court also hel
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that the warrantless search of the briefcase was permissible under the Fourth Amendment and that consecutive sentences for conspiracy and possession were appropriate.
-
A conviction under an indictment that fails to allege an essential element of the offense, specifically scienter, is invalid if the objection is raised before verdict. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative does not warrant a new trial.
-
The court held that the denial of a trial transcript was harmless error, the warrantless search and arrest were justified by exigent circumstances, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentencing court properly considered information in the presentence report.
-
The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony from a confidential informant was prejudicial error for Patiwana and Zummo, requiring reversal, but harmless error for Amato and Tussa. The court also found sufficient evidence and probable cause for Amato and Tussa's convict
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned his tote bag, making its warrantless search permissible, but suppressed statements made after he unequivocally requested an attorney from NTF agents.
-
The court held that the initial police-citizen contact constituted an investigatory stop, not an arrest, and was supported by reasonable suspicion, making the subsequent consent to search valid.
-
The government's appeal was dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal, and the district court's refusal to dismiss the Travel Act conspiracy charge was affirmed.
-
The court held that the trial court's continuance did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the substance was cocaine. However, the judgment erroneously recited convictions for charges not in the indictment.
-
The court held that narcotics offenses do not inherently constitute 'crimes of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and reversed the conviction on that count.
-
The court held that the DEA agents had probable cause to stop and search the automobile, and that the consent to search the apartment was voluntary and valid.
-
The court held that law enforcement officers acted in objective good faith reliance on a warrant, even if probable cause was lacking, and thus the evidence should not have been suppressed.
-
The court held that forcing a defendant to trial less than 30 days after a superseding indictment that substantially expands the charges constitutes an abuse of discretion, requiring reversal of the conviction on those expanded charges. However, convictions on charges unaffected
-
The court held that the appellant's ten-year sentence for distribution of heroin and possession with intent to distribute, considering parole eligibility, was not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance to secure a codefendant's testimony, as the defendant failed to show the codefendant would testify and the Fifth Amendment privilege could still be invoked.
-
The court held that the temporary detention of the defendant's travel bag was constitutionally permissible based on reasonable suspicion that it contained contraband, and that the initial encounter with law enforcement did not constitute a seizure.
-
The court held that possession of controlled substances within U.S. territory with intent to distribute is a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), regardless of whether the intent is to distribute within or outside the U.S., and regardless of whether the defendant passes through U.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the legality of a third party's detention, and that exigent circumstances justified securing his residence.
-
The court held that evidence of a second drug transaction, including the defendant's statement, was admissible to prove identity and was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment and suppressing evidence, as there was no legitimate basis for dismissal and the initial denial of the suppression motion was correct. The court vacated the district court's order and remand
-
The court held that the prosecution's notice-of-alibi filing was not an abuse of Rule 12.1, and telephone records were properly admitted under the business records exception.
-
The court held that the agents had probable cause to seize the briefcase and that the subsequent search pursuant to a warrant was lawful, reversing the district court's suppression order.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment because insufficient evidence was presented to raise the issue, and the court did not abuse its discretion in handling an unauthorized communication to a juror.
-
The court held that evidence of a subsequent drug sale was admissible to rebut an entrapment defense, and prosecutorial remarks, while inappropriate, were harmless error.
-
The court held that the roadblock stop and subsequent search of the vehicle were lawful, and the evidence seized was admissible.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of Benson's luggage was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not conducted in the absence of exigent circumstances after the luggage was under the exclusive control of the police.
-
The court held that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest the appellant for drinking in public because he failed to conduct a minimal inquiry into whether drinking was permitted at the establishment.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction and that a co-conspirator's possession of drugs could be imputed to the defendant. The court also held that the evidence sufficiently established the cocaine was the illegal 'L' isomer.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to identify the substance as L-cocaine and affirmed the conviction for distribution. The court also invoked the concurrent sentence doctrine to affirm the possession conviction without reaching the merits of the sufficiency challeng
-
The court held that the strip search of Berry was supported by reasonable suspicion and that Rieves' statements were not coerced, affirming their convictions.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to sever the trials of the two defendants after one defendant was acquitted of the conspiracy charge, leading to prejudice for both defendants.
-
A defendant can be convicted and sentenced for both possession with intent to distribute and distribution of narcotics when the acts involve discrete quantities and require different proofs, even if committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy.
-
The court held that the evidence seized was admissible and sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
Prosecution for conspiracy to distribute heroin after conviction for possession with intent to distribute does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in failing to submit the entrapment defense to the jury for Appellant Hodge, but affirmed Appellant Robertson's convictions.
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper under the 'hot pursuit' exception to the knock-and-announce rule, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motions for polygraph admission, discovery of informant's past testimony, or in its sentencing
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was valid because the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on collective knowledge and the exigencies of the situation.
-
The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, but the evidence was insufficient to prove Janet DiNovo's constructive possession of the heroin.
-
The court held that the undisclosed prior conviction of a key government witness, coupled with his false denial of it on the stand, deprived the appellants of a fair trial, requiring a new trial.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's assigned errors regarding voir dire, evidence preservation, multiplicity of charges, and jury instructions.