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 use of handcuffs during an investigative stop was reasonable, and a defendant's abandonment of a bag negated a Fourth Amendment claim. It also affirmed the denial of severance motions based on a redacted confession and the admission of prior bad acts evide
-
970 F.2d 227·
7th Cir.·
1992-07-16
·cited 12×
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, evidentiary rulings, or expert testimony.
-
The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the jury instructions were proper. The court also found that the defendant waived his challenge to the duplicitous nature of the indictment.
-
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and using a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense.
-
The court held that the airport encounter and subsequent search of the defendant's suitcase were consensual, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentences, holding that the district court properly refused a jury instruction, that nondisclosed evidence was not material under Brady, and that the Sentencing Guidelines were correctly applied.
-
949 F.2d 606·
2d Cir.·
1991-11-20
·cited 12×
The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the shoulder bag because she disclaimed ownership and any expectation of privacy in it. The court also found that no seizure occurred, and even if it had, reasonable suspicion existed.
-
The court held that the two-level enhancement for firearm possession under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) was improper because it was clearly improbable that the unloaded handgun found in a locked safe was connected to the drug offense.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire, jury instructions, or sentencing determination, affirming the conviction and sentence.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants waived their challenge to the indictment by not raising it pre-trial, that the jury instructions on conspiracy were proper, and that Bosko's trial counsel provided effective assistance.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop of the defendants' vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent searches of the vehicle trunk and apartment were constitutional based on voluntary consent. Therefore, the convictions are affirmed.
-
925 F.2d 1166·
9th Cir.·
1991-02-11
·cited 12×
The court held that there was insufficient evidence to connect the appellant to the drug conspiracy or to establish that he had dominion and control over the seized drugs.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence supported a RICO conspiracy conviction, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions to compel witness testimony or issue a missing witness instruction, nor did the convictions violate double jeopardy.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into Halliman's room was justified by exigent circumstances and that the evidence found was admissible under the independent source doctrine. The court also held that Phauls was lawfully arrested based on probable cause and that his trial
-
The court held that allowing two government agents to remain in the courtroom as witnesses violated Rule 615, but the error was harmless. The court also affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the hearsay or sentencing departure issues.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute convictions, finding insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the facts known to Agent Hicks did not establish reasonable, articulable suspicion for the Terry stop.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage, and no seizure occurred prior to consent.
-
The court held that venue was improper for the possession conviction but affirmed the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that a district court may consider drug quantities beyond those specified in the count of conviction when determining a defendant's base offense level, provided those quantities are part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan, and the factual findin
-
Improper prosecutorial remarks during summation, which undermined the presumption of innocence and the role of defense counsel, warrant reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the investigative stop and subsequent frisk of the defendant were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and not so intrusive as to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause.
-
The court held that the initial investigatory stop, the manner of the stop, the frisk, and the search of the vehicle were all lawful, and therefore the district court erred in suppressing the evidence.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, nor did it err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that law enforcement officials had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the defendant's bag for inspection by a narcotics detection dog, and that sufficient evidence existed to prove knowing possession of the cocaine found within.
-
The court held that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize the package based on the defendant's conduct.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, the Fourth Amendment was not violated by the search of the storage bin, and the girlfriend's testimony was admissible.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence seized without a warrant, denying motions for mistrial, or in its sentencing decisions.
-
The court held that the district court's conduct, including disparaging remarks about nationality and improper evidentiary rulings, created an appearance of bias, warranting a new trial for some defendants and dismissal of charges for another due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that while proceeding with jury selection in the defendant's absence was initially permissible, the district court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the defendant's explanation for his absence upon his return, requiring a remand for further fact
-
The court held that the sentencing judge's remarks, while approaching the zone of unconstitutionality, were permissible within the context of general deterrence and balanced with individual characteristics, and that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the attorney's c
-
The court held that non-black defendants lack standing to raise a Batson challenge regarding the exclusion of black jurors, and that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement does not apply to petit juries. The court also affirmed the admission of two tape-recorded con
-
The court held that while the district court erred in sustaining an objection to defense counsel's redirect examination, this error was harmless and did not affect the jury's verdict.
-
The court held that the government's use of peremptory strikes was not discriminatory, joinder was proper, photographic identifications were not unduly suggestive, informant identities were not required to be disclosed, and other trial rulings were not abuses of discretion.
-
The majority erred by allowing the exigent circumstances exception to swallow the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, despite a lack of evidence of imminent destruction.
-
The court held that the initial stop and subsequent searches violated the appellant's Fourth Amendment rights because they were not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for possession with intent to distribute heroin, and that any error in admitting certain testimony was harmless.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the bag contained an illicit substance, even if he didn't know it was specifically heroin.
-
The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent searches were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the conviction stands.
-
The court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal, finding no arguable issues.
-
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Bourjaily v. United States, which allows co-conspirator statements to be considered in determining co-conspirator status, effectively overrules the prior James test, making the admission of the statements proper.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment with prejudice due to Speedy Trial Act violations.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, refusing an addict-informer instruction, admitting certain evidence, denying severance, or finding the evidence sufficient to convict.
-
The court held that the warrantless second entry into the defendant's hotel room was lawful under the 'consent once removed' doctrine, and the seizure of evidence was permissible under the plain view doctrine.
-
The court held that the evidence obtained from the San Francisco search warrant was admissible because the warrant was based on independent probable cause, not tainted by the prior illegal search in Atlanta. The court also held that it was not bound by the government's prior conc
-
The court held that a defendant cannot be punished for both conspiracy and the underlying substantive offenses if they are not distinct under the Blockburger test, and that separate sentences for aiding and abetting possession and distribution are impermissible when arising from
-
The court held that the border search of the boat, including drilling into its hull, was constitutional, and the defendants' statements were voluntary and admissible. Any error regarding comments on post-Miranda silence was harmless.
-
Possession of a locked container with contraband, combined with other circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient for a jury to infer knowing possession.