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 government's failure to make reasonable efforts to produce an informant witness, who was crucial to the entrapment defense, required reversal of the convictions of the defendants relying on that defense. The court also held that exigent circumstances justi
-
-
The court held that the schoolyard statute applies when a defendant possesses drugs with intent to distribute them somewhere, even if the distribution itself does not occur within the 1,000-foot zone. The court also held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence o
-
The court held that while admitting drug courier profile testimony was an abuse of discretion, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also affirmed the denial of a sentence reduction for minimal or minor participant status.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the "design to conceal or disguise" element required for money laundering convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) for two car purchases.
-
A defendant's conviction for conspiracy is affirmed if evidence shows knowledge of the collective venture, but the sentence must be recalculated if prior conduct was not known or reasonably foreseeable.
-
The court held that the mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine offenses does not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause, and that a conspiracy conviction can stand despite the acquittal of a co-conspirator.
-
The court held that while the use of drug courier profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt was improper, the error was harmless given the substantial independent evidence supporting the conviction.
-
The court should not have reached the issue of whether federal or state law governs the validity of a state search warrant in a joint investigation, as the warrant is valid under both standards and the officers relied on it in good faith.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, separate convictions for distribution and possession were appropriate, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit, and the indictment was sufficient. The court affirmed the convictions.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Hobbs Act charges were properly brought, severance was not required, evidence was admissible, prosecutorial comments were permissible, and double jeopardy did not bar the substantive charges.
-
The court held that the officers' approach to the defendant's car was not an unlawful seizure, and the subsequent pat-down search and seizure of cocaine were justified by reasonable suspicion and probable cause, respectively. The court also rejected the defendant's speedy trial c
-
Illegally obtained statements may be used for impeachment, and a deliberate ignorance jury instruction is permissible when facts support it.
-
The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar retrial on substantive drug distribution counts after an acquittal on a conspiracy charge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and for using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
-
Vivian Cacho pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import cocaine and was sentenced to 78 months imprisonment. The district court properly refused downward adjustments based on her allegedly minor role as a courier and her status as mother of four young children, as the Guidelines do n
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty for possessing and conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of drug possession and conspiracy, that the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper, and that the denial of the motion to suppress and the sentencing enhancement were correct.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction, the evidence was properly admitted, the traffic stop was not pretextual, the search warrant was valid, and the sentencing enhancement was appropriate.
-
A district court's refusal to depart downward from a Guideline sentence based on a mistaken belief that it lacks the power to do so, absent a government motion, is appealable. The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of possession and that a downward departu
-
The court held that the district court did not err in adjusting the appellant's base offense level for a managerial role based on the purity of the drugs and the quantity involved.
-
The court affirmed convictions for RICO and other offenses, finding no merit in the appellants' numerous claims of error, including double jeopardy, insufficient interstate commerce nexus, and improper evidentiary or sentencing rulings.
-
The court concurred that evidence seized under a warrant, though potentially overbroad in scope, was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
-
The court held that the admission of unredacted grand jury testimony during deliberations, while potentially a Sixth Amendment violation, was harmless error because the testimony was cumulative and the defendant's credibility was extensively attacked. The court also affirmed the
-
The court should affirm the district court's sentencing enhancements for the defendant's role as a supervisor and possession of dangerous weapons.
-
Consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are impermissible for multiple firearms involved in a single drug trafficking offense. The court also affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the machine gun charge and the search warrant's validity.
-
The court held that a defendant's explicit denial of ownership of a suitcase, despite its presence, constitutes abandonment, forfeiting any Fourth Amendment protection against its search.
-
The court affirmed the district court's sentencing determination, finding that the two-level enhancement for firearm possession was appropriate and that the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous.
-
The dissent argues that the majority erred by not applying the Leon good faith exception to cure the taint of evidence obtained during an invalid detention, and that reasonable suspicion existed for the initial stop.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of Marion Johnson, Marshall Johnson, and Willie Lee Dancy, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
-
The court held that for drug distribution offenses committed during the 'hiatus period' under the 1984 version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), ADAA § 1004 preserved the preexisting special parole requirements, making it obligatory.
-
The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent questioning of the defendant did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bag.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony about a drug ledger, excluding impeachment testimony, allowing testimony in Spanish with an interpreter, and denying a motion to merge possession and distribution counts.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's identity, that defendants lacked standing to challenge certain aspects of a sentencing statute, and that a firearms conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) can be based on a co
-
The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by giving a supplemental jury instruction on conscious avoidance of knowledge, even after closing arguments, as the evidence supported the charge and the jury's inquiry necessitated it.
-
The court held that the five-and-a-quarter-hour detention of a Federal Express package, based on reasonable suspicion and culminating in a positive drug sniff, was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the warrantless search of her person, and this consent was not tainted by any prior illegal seizure.
-
The court held that post-arrest statements made after an ambiguous or clear request for counsel, without further clarification or waiver initiated by the defendant, should have been suppressed. The admission of these statements was not harmless error for the distribution counts.
-
The court held that a co-conspirator's statements made after a defendant's arrest are admissible if made in furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy by an unarrested co-conspirator. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no abuse of discretion in den
-
The court held that a jury can rationally find guilt for simple possession as a lesser included offense of possession with intent to distribute, even if the prosecution's evidence suggests distribution, and that cautionary instructions regarding extrinsic evidence were adequate.
-
Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is a 'drug trafficking crime' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), and thus a firearm charge under § 924(c) can be based upon it.
-
The court held that the appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated by the government's use of evidence from a prior acquitted conspiracy charge to support a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charge, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions.
-
The court held that the defenses of the two defendants were not mutually antagonistic, and therefore, severance was not required.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the search warrant was valid, and the exhibits were properly admitted.
-
The court held that the appellant waived his right to challenge juror bias by failing to raise the issue promptly and that the search was lawful based on voluntary consent.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the appellant's statements and financial records, and the transfer of evidence from Customs to the DEA was valid.
-
759 F.2d 743·
9th Cir.·
1985-05-02
·cited 20×
The court held that the Coast Guard's warrantless, suspicionless daytime boarding of a sailboat on the high seas for a safety inspection, and the subsequent discovery of contraband below deck after officers gained lawful entry due to a safety concern, did not violate the Fourth A
-
The court held that the government waived the issue of probable cause by failing to raise it timely, and that the prolonged detention of the suspect's luggage violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the detective had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on a corroborated informant's tip and that the warrantless search of her bag was lawful as incident to that arrest.