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 search warrant for firearms lacked probable cause, and the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's refusal to provide handwriting exemplars violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the joint trial of both defendants was proper under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8(b) and 14, and that other claims of error were without merit.
-
The court held that the government's failure to disclose a tape recording did not warrant a new trial or hearing, as it was unlikely to have affected the verdict. Other claims of error were also found to be without merit.
-
The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the appellants based on the totality of the circumstances, and that statements made during the initial investigatory detention were admissible as they were not made during custodial interrogation.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the van was not supported by probable cause, and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed Buster's conviction due to the admission of illegally obtained evidence.
-
The court held that all felony convictions less than ten years old are at least somewhat probative of credibility, and the trial court has discretion to determine the extent of background information needed to balance probativeness against prejudice.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and his subsequent statements were voluntary and admissible.
-
The court held that Caucasian male defendants lack standing to allege discrimination in grand jury foreperson selection as an equal protection violation, and their allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim. The court also upheld the denial of motions to suppress
-
The court held that the evidence seized was admissible, the superseding indictment was not the product of prosecutorial vindictiveness, and the chain of custody was sufficient.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony of a prior drug deal, in admitting coconspirator hearsay after a proper hearing, or in denying the motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence.
-
The Court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant established sufficient probable cause, and therefore the district court erred in suppressing the seized evidence.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause, and the admission of evidence of other crimes was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
-
The court affirmed the appellant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy, that venue was waived, and that the joint trial did not prejudice the appellant.
-
A Drug Enforcement Administration agent may participate with customs inspectors in conducting a border search without violating constitutional or statutory law.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions for distributing heroin, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute heroin.
-
The court held that the search was a lawful border search, and the level of intrusion was reasonable given the specific suspicions.
-
The court held that the admission of an informant's statement was harmless error and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction of the passenger (Carrillo) for insufficient evidence of possession, while affirming the driver's conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellants' participation in the conspiracy and their intent to distribute heroin, supporting their convictions.
-
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) creates a separate federal crime and that the search and seizure were lawful. The jury instructions were adequate.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing specific voir dire questions, admitting evidence, allowing prosecutor's remarks, or sentencing on all counts.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to record Spanish testimony in Spanish and to compel the government to produce an informant, as the current translation system was constitutional and the government had not acted with sufficient pr
-
The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's non-responsive answer suggesting the appellant may have been in jail, and the jury's verdict form, did not constitute plain error affecting substantial rights.
-
-
The court held that the admission of evidence found on the appellant and her post-arrest statements were proper, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict Da Silva of conspiracy.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in restricting the cross-examination of a government witness regarding pending charges and in allowing a rebuttal witness, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding impeachment testimony and properly instructed the jury on entrapment, affirming the convictions.
-
475 F.2d 837·
9th Cir.·
1973-03-12
·cited 20×
The court held that a parole warrant, improperly handled and executed contrary to explicit instructions to hold it in abeyance, renders an arrest based upon it invalid, and evidence obtained as a result of such an arrest is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges because the facts alleged, when construed most favorably to the State, could establish a prima facie case of constructive possession.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding drug trafficking methods and a rap verse found in the defendant's notebook, as these were relevant to the defendant's knowledge and intent and were admitted with appropriat
-
The court held that the district court impermissibly enhanced the defendant's sentence based on his national origin, rather than his involvement in drug trafficking from a source country.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the Batson challenge, that evidence was sufficient to convict Moreno for importing cocaine, but insufficient to convict Orguiza for conspiracy, and that the trial court erred by failing to make an on-the-record finding
-
The court held that the initial seizure constituted an arrest without probable cause, and subsequent consent to search was tainted by the illegal arrest, requiring suppression of all evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed because his challenges regarding jury selection, sufficiency of evidence, and multiplicitous counts lack merit.
-
The court held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the search of the car, and that even if they had standing, the consent to search was voluntary and not the fruit of an illegal seizure. The evidence was also sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the tape of a conversation was admissible because it was sufficiently authenticated by circumstantial evidence and also admissible as a co-conspirator's statement, and that the prosecutor's remarks and the jury's use of transcripts did not constitute prejudici
-
The court held that the jury's consideration of an exhibit not admitted into evidence required a new trial, and that the district court erred in refusing to impose a mandatory special parole term.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court's intervention prevented reversible error from the prosecutor's improper rebuttal argument.
-
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a death threat was proper, as it was relevant to show consciousness of guilt and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
-
The court held that the strip search of the defendant at the border was lawful because it was supported by reasonable suspicion, and therefore the contraband evidence obtained was admissible.
-
The court held that even if hearsay evidence and jury instructions were improperly admitted, the errors were harmless due to overwhelming other evidence of guilt. The evidence was also sufficient to support Poitier's conviction for conspiracy.
-
The court held that the arresting agent had probable cause to arrest the suspect based on the totality of her suspicious actions and the discovery of illegal drugs, rendering the subsequent seizure of evidence admissible.
-
The court held that the deputy marshal's investigatory stop, pat-down for weapons, and subsequent searches of the appellant's person and briefcase were lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of minimization of wiretap interceptions, but most other grounds for suppression did not require a hearing.
-
A defendant is subject to U.S. narcotics laws even if a foreign trafficker, provided the controlled substance is brought within U.S. territorial jurisdiction and there is intent to distribute.
-
The court held that retaining a driver's license during questioning constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of evidence obtained thereafter.
-
The court held that the sentencing guidelines' disparate treatment of crack cocaine versus powdered cocaine does not violate due process or equal protection rights, as there is a rational basis for the distinction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Christian for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to a drug offense and affirmed Friend's sentence, finding the district court did not err in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
A firearm can be considered available for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) if its proximity to the defendant supports an inference that it emboldened him, even if the defendant could not personally access it due to disability, provided confederates could retrieve it.
-
The court held that the district court did not clearly err in relying on an officer's estimate of unrecovered cocaine to determine the base offense level for sentencing.