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 jury's verdict for conspiracy and aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine, and that evidence from other counts was properly considered for identification.
-
The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to make the required express finding that the defendant would not benefit from sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
-
The court held that Customs officials had reasonable suspicion to detain and search individuals entering the United States for narcotics, and that such searches, including x-rays and administration of laxatives, are permissible under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspi
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the voir dire and jury instructions were proper, and the admission of a redacted statement and the handling of alleged juror misconduct did not constitute reversible error.
-
The detention of luggage for a narcotics dog sniff test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as the DEA agents acted with diligence and provided adequate information to the suspect.
-
The government's appeal from a judgment of acquittal is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, even if the acquittal was based on erroneous evidentiary rulings.
-
The court vacated the conspiracy conviction and sentence due to double jeopardy, finding it a lesser included offense of continuing criminal enterprise. The court applied the concurrent sentence rule to avoid deciding whether cumulative sentences for CCE and its predicate offense
-
The court held that the defendant's statements to agents were voluntary and that he consented to the search of his automobile, thus denying his motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the initial stop of the limousine was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motion to dismiss one count of the indictment. However, the court also held tha
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit provided a 'clear indication' of internal body smuggling, justifying the magistrate's order for an x-ray search.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the airplane was permissible under the automobile exception and as a search incident to arrest, and that probable cause existed to arrest the appellants.
-
The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent request for consent to search were not Fourth Amendment seizures because a reasonable person would have believed they were free to leave.
-
The court held that the entry into the appellants' cabin was lawful, justifying the seizure of evidence in plain view, and that prior drug sales and statements by a co-conspirator were admissible. However, the jury instruction on constructive possession for Count II was erroneous
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically the imminent risk of evidence destruction, and that evidence seen in plain view was lawfully seized.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop of the appellants' vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion and that the search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
-
The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding entrapment, the admission of oral statements, and the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy were without merit.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove knowledge of the cocaine, the warrantless search of the briefcase was justified by exigent circumstances, and any errors in admitting evidence were harmless.
-
Customs inspectors had reasonable suspicion to conduct a personal search of the appellant, revealing cocaine.
-
The search of the defendants at the railroad station was not a border search or its functional equivalent, and the officers lacked reasonable cause to believe the defendants were carrying illegally imported heroin.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's financial difficulties, but that the special parole condition prohibiting the defendant from returning to the United States was beyond the court's authority.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest of Blalock in his business premises was lawful due to probable cause, and the seizure of the black metal box containing heroin was justified under the plain view doctrine.
-
The court held that the district court properly submitted the issue of entrapment to the jury and that evidence of prior drug sales was admissible to show intent and predisposition. However, one of two concurrent sentences imposed on Albert must be vacated.
-
The court held that using suppressed wiretap recordings to refresh a witness's recollection before trial does not violate the statutory prohibition on disclosure or use of such recordings.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and search of the vehicle were supported by probable cause, and the defendant's inculpatory statements were voluntary and admissible.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of government witnesses regarding a confidential informant, as the scope of cross-examination is within the trial court's discretion and the defendant was not denied the opportunity to p
-
The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions adequately conveyed the defense theory and that denying a request for separate jury polls for multiple defendants was not error in this uncomplicated case.
-
The court should have ordered an in camera hearing to determine the necessity of witness Doe's information, balancing the defendant's right to prepare a defense against the government's interest in informant secrecy.
-
The court held that probable cause existed for the arrests, that severance was not required, and that evidence of a prior conviction was admissible for limited purposes.
-
Evidence seized from an apartment, including documents and keys, was properly admitted because the search warrants were supported by probable cause and the seized items fell within the scope of the warrants as instrumentalities and records of a narcotics business.
-
489 F.2d 714·
8th Cir.·
1974-01-16
·cited 14×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute narcotics, and that the trial court did not err in refusing a missing witness instruction.
-
The majority opinion reversed the suppression of evidence seized from defendant Pagan's purse but affirmed the suppression of defendant Vigo's oral statements.
-
James Bernard Braddy appealed his conviction for drug possession charges, challenging the legality of a traffic stop, its prolongation, and the subsequent search of his vehicle based on drug detection dog alerts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Braddy
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the subsequent detention of the defendant's bags was justified by reasonable suspicion.
-
The court held that while most of the defendant's claims lacked merit or were waived, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel required a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction on Count 2, the denial of the motion to suppress for Count 4 was proper, and procedural errors were harmless. However, the forfeiture of substitute property was improperly valued.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that similar act evidence was properly admitted, hearsay was correctly excluded, and the jury instruction on flight was adequate.
-
The court held that the search of Garcia's luggage was consensual and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Wolfe, affirming the convictions.
-
The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendant did not voluntarily consent to accompany the officers, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the admission of hearsay statements for a non-hearsay purpose (to show why a witness remembered a conversation) was not an abuse of discretion, even without a limiting instruction, as it did not constitute plain error.
-
The en banc court held that the defendant's trial counsel's decision not to file a motion to suppress was a reasonable, informed judgment, thus not constituting ineffective assistance of counsel or 'cause shown' to overcome the waiver under Rule 12(f).
-
Prosecutor's comments on uncontradicted testimony and rhetorical questions about defendants' presence were not improper and did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
529 F.2d 355·
D.C. Cir.·
1976-01-19
·cited 13×
The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, remanding for further proceedings.
-
The court held that a defendant's voluntary absence from a portion of his trial does not necessitate a mistrial if the trial court, in its discretion, determines it is appropriate to proceed.
-
J.W., a juvenile, appealed a withholding of adjudication and probation sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and resisting an officer without violence. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress regarding the cocaine evidence, finding J.
-
The government's misconduct, including the manufacture of evidence by a Customs agent and the subsequent knowing use of that tainted evidence at trial, constitutes a constitutional error that is not subject to the harmless error rule. This misconduct deprived the defendant of due
-
Gainer appeals convictions for cocaine possession with intent to distribute, attempted sale/delivery, and being a principal to sale/delivery. The court reverses the possession with intent to distribute conviction because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant 'used' a firearm in relation to drug possession, but sufficient to prove drug possession with intent to distribute.
-
A prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) qualifies as a predicate offense for career offender status. However, a defendant has a constitutional right to collaterally attack prior convictions used for sentence enhancement at the sentencing hearing.
-
The court held that denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not an unconstitutional penalty for asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege, and the defendant's criminal activity was 'otherwise extensive' justifying an upward adjustment.