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 omission of the informant's familial relationship in the warrant affidavit was not a Franks violation and that taped conversations were admissible coconspirator statements.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in determining the quantity of cocaine involved in the conspiracy based on a ledger found in the defendant's bedroom, nor did it violate the defendant's right to notice.
-
The court held that Anthony Ruiz Del Vizo's arrest was supported by probable cause, and therefore the denial of his motion to suppress evidence was correct.
-
The court held that a five-month delay in receiving a trial transcript did not violate due process without a showing of prejudice, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, as it only established a buyer-seller relationship.
-
905 F.2d 18·
2d Cir.·
1990-05-25
·cited 18×
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for possession of cocaine, but sufficient for conspiracy and use of a communication facility to commit a narcotics felony.
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court erred in departing downward from the sentencing guidelines based on factors adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the consent to search was voluntary, and the sentencing guideline applications were not erroneous.
-
The court held that discretionary refusals to depart from sentencing guidelines are not appealable, and affirmed the conviction and sentence on other grounds.
-
The court held that the convictions and sentences were valid, and that the government's cross-appeal regarding sentencing under the Guidelines was procedurally barred due to a failure to object.
-
A jury's brief, inadvertent observation of a defendant in handcuffs outside the courtroom does not automatically require reversal if the trial court takes appropriate curative measures and the defendant fails to affirmatively show actual prejudice.
-
The court held that while the highway search was not a valid search incident to arrest, it was lawful because the defendant voluntarily consented to it.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, admitting evidence from a garbage search, admitting expert testimony, or denying a motion for a new trial.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for intent to distribute, the search warrant was valid, and the trial court did not err in refusing to disclose the informant's identity or in conducting an in-chambers conference without the defendant.
-
Acquittal on importation charges does not necessarily mean the jury decided issues of fact essential to possession with intent to distribute charges, thus collateral estoppel does not bar retrial on those counts.
-
The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to be present at jury selection can be knowing and intelligent even if it occurs through counsel and not in open court, and that the advice of counsel need not meet the highest standards.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of the entrapment defense and no due process violation.
-
The court held that co-conspirator hearsay statements were admissible against a defendant if independent evidence showed membership in the conspiracy, and that cumulative sentences could be imposed for simultaneous possession of different controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 8
-
The court held that the defendants' entrapment defense failed because the jury found them predisposed to commit the crime, and that the pretrial waiver of joint representation was valid despite the court not conducting a further inquiry when one defendant testified.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's residence was justified by exigent circumstances and that the search warrant was not overbroad. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing.
-
The court held that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the observed bulge, suspicious behavior, and drug courier profile, making the subsequent search incident to a valid arrest constitutional.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, that the defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the use of standby counsel, and that the limitation on the interpreter, while an error, was harmless.
-
A plea agreement to dismiss charges in one district does not preclude prosecution for similar charges in another district unless the agreement explicitly states so.
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the prior indictment without prejudice, allowing for reprosecution under the Speedy Trial Act.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered into an agreement to commit a conspiracy, reversing her conviction.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act claim requires further findings by the district court regarding the reasonableness of the delay in processing the suppression motion, but affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the dismissal of the prosecutorial misconduct claim
-
The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a proper cautionary instruction regarding a co-defendant's midtrial acquittal, this error was not reversible. The conviction is affirmed.
-
The court held that the wiretap authorization was valid because the Attorney General properly designated an Assistant Attorney General by job title, and the affidavit established probable cause under the totality of the circumstances test. However, the court remanded the case to
-
The court held that the agents had reasonable suspicion for the initial investigatory stop and that the subsequent stop, though second, did not exceed the bounds of an investigatory stop and was not an arrest without probable cause. The attempted search was valid as incident to a
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting evidence of defendants' flight, or limiting cross-examination of a government witness.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless re-entry of the residence, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for conspiracy, possession, and distribution of cocaine.
-
The court held that the jury instructions on entrapment were proper, the government's use of an informant did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal, and the defendants' post-arrest statements were admissible.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned the bag of cocaine, thus lacking standing to challenge its seizure, and that his consent to search his car was voluntary. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that post-arrest statements elicited surreptitiously, without notice to counsel, are admissible if they concern a separate crime and are admitted to show consciousness of guilt, not the original offense.
-
The court held that the agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant based on a combination of factors, and the quantity of drugs seized was sufficient to infer intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of trash was lawful, the search warrant was valid, evidence of prior convictions was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the trial judge's failure to recharge the jury on willful membership in the conspiracy, when responding to a jury's request for clarification, constituted reversible error.
-
The court held that the border search and seizure were valid, and the consideration of the appellant's non-cooperation in sentencing was permissible as an explanation, not an enhancement.
-
The court held that the initial stop of the defendants' vehicle was a legitimate investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent seizure of cocaine in plain view was valid.
-
The court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of cocaine from a co-defendant's apartment on the conspiracy count, but had automatic standing on the possession count. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit to the Fourth Amendment
-
-
The court held that a second trial after a mistrial declared upon defense motion, even if necessitated by prosecutorial error, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The jury instruction regarding quantity and purity of drugs was supported by evidence and not plain error. I
-
The court held that admitting evidence of marijuana transactions to prove predisposition for cocaine distribution was proper under Rule 404(b), and the dismissal of a single juror with anti-jury sentiments did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the motel room was valid based on consent, the arrest and subsequent search of the vehicle were lawful, and any prejudice from the jury seeing unadmitted exhibits was cured by judicial admonitions.
-
The court held that the majority's decision impermissibly abridged the Fourth Amendment rights of the appellant.
-
The court held that the marital privilege, both for confidential communications and for testimony against a spouse, does not apply in this case, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying defendants' motions to quash the jury panel without allowing inquiry into prior jury service in narcotics cases and in consolidating cases without proper severance.
-
The court held that the Miranda warnings given were sufficient and the 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction was proper. The proof of the substance being cocaine was also adequate.
-
The court held that the evidence supported only a single conspiracy, thus defendants could not be sentenced on both conspiracy counts. However, evidence was sufficient to convict on other counts and sentencing was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the defendants were not prejudiced by the pretrial non-disclosure of an informant's identity, nor by restrictions on cross-examination and argument, and that their convictions were otherwise valid.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on juror English proficiency claims raised post-verdict, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments, while improper, did not constitute plain error given the context of defense coun