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 evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of drug and firearms counts was proper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance or continuance motions.
-
The court held that a district court's departure from Sentencing Guidelines requires specific findings of circumstances not adequately considered by the Commission, and that the Drug Quantity Table's equivalency of 100 grams per marijuana plant is invalid as applied when the stat
-
A defendant seeking a mitigating factor at sentencing bears the burden of proving its applicability by a preponderance of the evidence, and co-conspirator statements made after arrest are admissible if in furtherance of the conspiracy.
-
499 F.2d 872·
2d Cir.·
1974-05-07
·cited 106×
The court held that the omission of a minimization directive from a wiretap order was a technical defect, not rendering the order invalid if the investigation substantially complied with the statute. It also held that expert testimony on narcotics jargon was admissible and that d
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of coconspirator statements, denial of severance motions, limitations on cross-examination, or sufficiency of evidence for the charges.
-
The court held that the Ninth Circuit's refusal to adopt the rule of per se admissibility for statements falling within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions is incorrect and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.
-
The court reversed the conviction, holding that the condition of probation requiring the defendant to submit to search at any time upon request by a law enforcement officer was improper. The court reasoned that while probationers may be subject to searches by probation officers,
-
The court held that while the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by recording post-indictment conversations, the proper remedy was to exclude the evidence from the trial of the indicted charges, not to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence
-
901 F.2d 205·
2d Cir.·
1990-04-03
·cited 102×
The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one firearm conviction and vacated others for resentencing due to jury instruction errors regarding continuing criminal enterprise.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of relevant conduct for GSR calculation was supported by evidence, but erred in departing downward based on defendant's cooperation without a government motion and on rehabilitation that was not extraordinary.
-
The court affirmed the sentences of all four defendants, finding that the district courts properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines, including upward departures, and that the right of allocution was not denied.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, rebuttal testimony was admissible, prior bad acts evidence was properly admitted, and the upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was reasonable.
-
The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and that the jury charge on conscious avoidance was proper, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not require a connection between a firearm and a drug offense for sentence enhancement, only possession during the offense, and that a special assessment statute was unconstitutional.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including possession of a key to a fortified drug house, was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Sentencing enhance
-
The court held that the admission of deposition testimony under 18 U.S.C. § 3503 was constitutional, both facially and as applied, and that the defendants' departure from the deposition constituted a waiver of their objections.
-
The court held that the warrantless search and seizure of heroin was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, balancing the diminished expectation of privacy against the exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove appellant's possession of drugs and that the jury instruction on aiding and abetting was proper.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for continuance and mistrial based on prejudicial publicity, nor in denying a motion to dismiss based on alleged taint from state immunity.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment, but Mapp's conviction on the sale count was affirmed due to lack of standing to challenge the evidence used for that count.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the search and seizure of the heroin were lawful.
-
The court held that the search warrants were valid, the jury instructions were adequate, and the recitation of Miranda warnings was harmless error, but the evidence was insufficient to convict Cleo Brown of conspiracy.
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to search his vehicle was tainted by his unlawful seizure and detention, and therefore the evidence found must be suppressed.
-
The court held that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause, co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the joinder and severance decisions were not abuses of discretion, leading to no reversible error.
-
The court affirmed the district court's sentencing decision, finding no clear error in factual determinations or Guideline applications regarding obstruction of justice and acceptance of responsibility, and deeming the upward departure reasonable.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of the appellants for RICO, CCE, and related offenses, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the indictment did not suffer a constructive amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the agent's eavesdropping was lawful, and the drug-sniffing dog's actions did not constitute a search. However, the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's inference of intent to distribute for two de
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the use of an electronic tracking device was not an unreasonable search, consent to search was valid, the search warrant affidavit was sufficient, the warrant's execution was permissible under the circumstances, and consecutive sent
-
A defendant cannot be convicted of possession of drugs based on constructive possession without evidence of ultimate control over the drugs, and a flawed jury instruction on co-conspirator liability under Pinkerton v. United States can lead to reversal.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and substantive counts, valid search warrants, and proper admission of evidence, with any errors deemed harmless.
-
The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession against Manuel Valenzuela, Corley, and Alonso Lizarraga, but reversed Bernardina Lizarraga's convictions due to insufficient evidence.
-
A defendant's consent to a mistrial, given through counsel, bars a subsequent double jeopardy claim, even if the mistrial was declared due to defense counsel's error and the defendant did not personally waive the right on the record.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that probable cause existed for warrantless arrests and searches, and that sufficiency of evidence challenges were waived or supported by substantial evidence. Minor witnesses were competent.
-
The court held that admitting evidence of the defendant's prior arrest in California for drug possession was prejudicial error because it was not proven by clear and convincing evidence and its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial impact.
-
475 F.2d 688·
9th Cir.·
1973-03-02
·cited 92×
The court affirmed convictions for drug trafficking and conspiracy, but vacated one conspiracy conviction for two appellants and struck one fine for another, finding no reversible error in the remaining convictions or sentences.
-
The court affirmed the jury convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior bad acts evidence, properly denied the motion for acquittal on the firearm charge, and correctly applied the sentencing guidelines for obstruction of justice.
-
The court held that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to issue the search warrants, and that the defendants failed to demonstrate material omissions from the affidavit under the Franks test.
-
A sentencing court may consider drug quantities not covered by counts of conviction if they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, and a defendant's entitlement to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not automati
-
The court held that it has jurisdiction over the government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal entered after a new trial was granted, and that the district court erred in granting the motion for a new trial.
-
The court held that possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin are lesser included offenses when the evidence of possession is solely derived from the distribution act, thus precluding consecutive sentences. However, the court affirmed convictions for conspir
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for possession and conspiracy, that the informant's identity need not be disclosed, that the challenged statement was harmless error, and that sentencing enhancements were proper.
-
A district court cannot depart from sentencing guidelines based on general community sentiment or the incidence of crime in a particular locality, as these factors are considered by the Sentencing Commission and departures must be based on circumstances specific to the offender a
-
The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the career offender provision, are constitutional and properly applied, and that residential burglary qualifies as a crime of violence.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug transaction, refusing to strike testimony after a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment, or admitting hotel registration records. Any error in the jury instruction regarding pr
-
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the sentence, finding the district court erred in granting a two-level reduction for minor participant status without sufficient factual basis.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Hawkins' conviction on the Travel Act charge (Count Three), reversing that conviction, but affirmed all other convictions and rulings.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish possession for Nicanor, and therefore insufficient to support the convictions of his alleged aiders and abettors.
-
The court held that the cumulative effect of judicial errors and prosecutorial misconduct, along with a conflict of interest affecting one defendant's counsel, deprived the appellants of a fair trial.