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 district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the heroin, admitting the co-conspirator's statements, or admitting the introduction as an adoptive admission, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and correctly determined that a prosecutorial remark did not impermissibly prejudice a defendant's right not to testify.
-
The court held that the joinder of drug and weapon offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice under Rule 14 to warrant a new trial.
-
The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception was proper, and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding alleged prior misconduct or in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that the district court correctly excluded the time from the filing of pretrial motions to their disposition when calculating the 70-day period under the Speedy Trial Act, and that the evidence presented did not warrant an entrapment jury instruction.
-
A caretaker with implied authority from the owner can validly consent to a search of a vacation house, and initial statements made by a suspect before being considered in custody are admissible without Miranda warnings.
-
The court held that a five-and-a-half-month adjournment between jury selection and the commencement of trial, without stated justification, violated the Speedy Trial Act.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to strike a juror, imposing consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances, admitting evidence of unexplained wealth, admitting a deceased witness's prior testimony, or denying a motion to
-
The court held that the schoolyard statute applies even if the drug sale was to an adult, at night, and not directly involving school children, as long as it occurred within 1,000 feet of a school.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of intent to distribute and that any error in jury instructions was harmless or not plain error.
-
Body cavity searches conducted at the border are permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by reasonable suspicion that the individual is concealing contraband internally.
-
The court held that the affidavit submitted to the magistrate, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, provided sufficient reliable facts to establish probable cause for the search warrant.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's artificial leg was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that sufficient evidence existed to prove the intent required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1791.
-
-
The court held that a search incident to a lawful arrest is permissible, even if the arrest warrant was not obtained despite ample opportunity. However, evidence of a prior, distinct drug transaction, even if related, must be analyzed under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 40
-
719 F.2d 1485·
10th Cir.·
1983-10-21
·cited 16×
The court held that the trial court properly denied motions to suppress evidence, that the prosecutor's closing argument was not grounds for reversal, that the exclusion of expert testimony was proper, that severance was not required, and that the defendant was not denied effecti
-
The court held that the appellant's arrest was supported by probable cause, the evidence seized was admissible, and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
-
The court held that a search conducted pursuant to voluntary consent is an exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements, and that a search incident to a lawful arrest is also permissible.
-
The dissenting judge holds that the DEA agents lacked probable cause to arrest Swayne, making the seizure of evidence and his inculpatory statement inadmissible.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the jury instructions were adequate, and the imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate double jeopardy.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions for conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and possession of cocaine, but that the special parole term was improperly imposed.
-
The court should have suppressed evidence obtained from Deggendorf's involuntary detention.
-
The court held that the defendant waived any right to challenge the competency of a juror by expressly agreeing to proceed with the original panel. Federal prosecution after state dismissal was permissible under the Petite policy, and exigent circumstances justified the warrantle
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, refusing a new trial based on alleged Brady violations, finding the evidence sufficient for conspiracy convictions, admitting expert testimony, refusing a specific jury instruction,
-
The court held that a co-defendant's argument that another defendant's counsel's comment on his silence constituted a comment on his failure to testify was not grounds for reversal.
-
The court held that appellees Candido Riquelmy and Felix Lopez lacked standing to challenge the search of Eddie Riquelmy's person because they had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched item and were not charged with a possessory offense after the government agreed
-
The court held that the officer's stop of the defendant was justified by reasonable suspicion, making the seizure of evidence permissible.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant for conspiracy with McGarrity, and the search of the airplane was legal due to corroborated informant information and exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that admitting statements from a withdrawn guilty plea for impeachment purposes was error, but harmless error given the overall evidence.
-
The court held that the sentencing procedure for prior convictions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 851(b) was not substantially complied with, requiring vacation of the sentence.
-
The admission of a chemist's report containing an agent's hearsay notation linking a defendant to drug distribution was reversible error, but the denial of a continuance for a witness was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that a confession obtained during custody is admissible if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights, and that the corroboration standard for confessions in federal courts does not require independent proof of the corpus delicti.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause and that the statute 21 U.S.C. § 848 was not unconstitutionally vague.
-
The court held that statements made by a coconspirator during the course of the conspiracy are admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, even if the coconspirator does not testify, and do not violate the Confrontation Clause.
-
The court held that a conviction and sentence on separate counts for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, arising from a single transaction, can be affirmed under the concurrent sentence doctrine when concurrent sentences are imposed and no prejudice r
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the car was lawful based on consent, the refusal of a 'mere presence' jury instruction was not error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that newly discovered impeachment evidence, without more, does not warrant a new trial, and that challenges to the constitutional validity of prior convictions, other than Gideon violations, are generally not reviewable at a federal sentencing hearing.
-
The court held that even if expert testimony was admissible, the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines range, and affirmed the conviction in all other respects.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting testimony, or refusing a downward sentencing departure, and that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful.
-
The court held that the investigative stop of the automobile, the show of force, the pat-down search, and the subsequent search of the automobile were all constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a statement offered to show the defendant's state of mind, as it was not hearsay when offered for that purpose.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to suppress evidence from the plane search as untimely, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for deposing foreign witnesses.
-
The court held that the entry into Jackson's bedroom was a lawful security check and her subsequent consent to search was voluntary, and that collateral estoppel did not bar her retrial on possession charges after an acquittal on conspiracy charges.
-
The court held that admitting evidence of a prior marijuana possession conviction was error because it was not similar enough to the cocaine distribution charge to prove predisposition, and the trial court failed to conduct a Rule 403 balancing test. However, the court found that
-
The court held that the January 21, 1978 search of Sarah Howard's residence was illegal because the police lacked probable cause to believe Earl Jones was present and Sarah Howard's consent was not freely and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances.
-
123 F.4th 1197·
11th Cir.·
2024-12-02
·cited 14×
Reginald Graham and ten co-defendants appealed their convictions in a racketeering and narcotics conspiracy case involving the Dub Street Blood Family gang in Miami. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the defendants' Count 1 RICO conspiracy convictions due to the district court's whole
-
Alfonzo Lewis challenged his federal convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine, arguing that a state court had previously found the traffic stop and search illegal, that certain jurors should have been dismissed, and
-
The court held that the investigative stop was based on reasonable suspicion, the search of the vehicle and luggage was permissible under the automobile exception, and while the 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction was erroneously given, it constituted harmless error. The evide