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 conviction for aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and that the voice recording was properly authenticated and admitted.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to stop and search the defendants' vehicle, making the seized cocaine admissible evidence.
-
The court held that the warrantless roadside search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception due to probable cause, the station house search warrant was sufficiently particular, and the inventory searches of the purse were lawful.
-
The court held that a trial court must answer a deliberating jury's specific legal questions, and failing to do so when the jury asks whether an agreement with a government agent can constitute conspiracy is prejudicial error for a defendant whose conviction rests solely on such
-
The court held that a petitioner seeking relief from a stand committed fine due to indigence should pursue administrative remedies rather than a § 2255 petition, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute despite a contro
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding evidence of police misconduct, accepting a partial jury verdict, or refusing to apply the rule of consistency.
-
The court held that evidence of the defendant's prior international trips was improperly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to prove knowledge and was unduly prejudicial.
-
The court held that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act is constitutional and that the admission of coconspirator statements and a defendant's false exculpatory statement were proper or harmless error. The evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Batson hearing for Italian-Americans, denying a motion for recusal, enhancing sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 without specific notice, or in its grand jury selection process.
-
The court held that evidence of co-conspirator actions after one conspirator's arrest is admissible, and that dismissing a juror for just cause and proceeding with eleven jurors is permissible under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b).
-
The court held that consecutive sentences for five separate convictions of possession with intent to distribute cocaine did not violate double jeopardy.
-
The court held that the search warrant was validly issued and executed, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
-
The court held that MDMA convictions must be reversed because the DEA exceeded its authority in making MDMA illegal, but Bernauer's cocaine conviction is affirmed based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
-
-
Evidence of prior and subsequent negotiations and illicit transactions, in addition to the specific sale charged, can be used to establish a seller's guilt as an aider and abettor for the recipient's possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting voir dire and that the verdict forms did not improperly amend the indictment.
-
The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage was lawful, either through voluntary consent or implied consent, and that any potential illegality of the initial stop was purged by this consent. The court also found no violation of the Speedy Trial Act.
-
The court held that a private citizen's search, even if motivated by a desire to assist law enforcement, does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the government did not know of, acquiesce in, or initiate the intrusive conduct. Graciela Flores' conviction for two conspiracy counts
-
The court held that the investigating officer's affair with a codefendant, while improper, did not violate the defendant's due process rights, interfere with his right to counsel, or vitiate the wiretap application, absent demonstrable prejudice.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, but remanded for correction of the judgment.
-
The court held that the appearance of justice was not satisfied due to the district judge's communications with the United States Attorney and a Senator regarding the defendant's case, requiring reassignment for resentencing.
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle and its contents was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because probable cause existed to believe contraband was in the vehicle, and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search.
-
The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by police surveillance and the defendant's suspicious statements, provided probable cause for his arrest and the subsequent search warrant. Statements made by the defendant were admissible as they were either voluntary or prec
-
Possession of cocaine in the United States, even with intent to distribute it in a foreign country, is sufficient to establish guilt under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence obtained through wiretaps and oral communications, nor in admitting certain hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant a mistrial.
-
The court held that the district court must determine whether the defendant freely consented to the search of his luggage, as this issue was not resolved below.
-
The government waived its right to challenge the defendant's standing to contest the search of a motel room due to inconsistent arguments made throughout the litigation.
-
Defendants lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in a package addressed to a third party, even if they were the intended recipients of its contents.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to elect between counts, nor in using the language of conspiracy in jury instructions.
-
The court held that warrantless installation and monitoring of a beeper inside private residences or storage lockers violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from a tainted search warrant must be suppressed.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance or in ruling that the defendant lacked standing to challenge evidence seized from a co-defendant's residence.
-
The court held that the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession, as a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty of simple possession but not possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the "knock and notice" requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 applied to the iron gate, and the officers' forced entry without compliance required suppression of the seized evidence.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's requests for a chemist, both before and during trial, because the requests were untimely and failed to demonstrate necessity for an adequate defense.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop, baggage detention for a sniff-search, and seizure of items incident to arrest were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and thus, the evidence was admissible.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in sustaining objections to irrelevant cross-examination, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and that there was no plain error in failing to instruct on simple possession.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of a paper grocery bag seized from a car was unlawful, but the search of a paper bag containing a gun was lawful because its contents were inferable from its outward appearance. The court affirmed convictions related to the gun but rever
-
The court held that the DEA agents had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on information from bowling alley employees and their own observations, and that the defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag he voluntarily discarded.
-
The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for undercover agents to gather evidence in plain view, even if obtained through deception.
-
The court held that a defendant cannot assert a violation of a witness's Fifth Amendment privilege, and that considering a defendant's perjury at a co-defendant's trial during sentencing for the original offense does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
The court held that the defendants' challenges to the jury array on statutory and constitutional grounds were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty on charges of conspiracy to import and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, aiding and abetting importation, and possession with intent to distribute.
-
Consecutive sentences for conspiracy and substantive narcotics offenses are permissible as they are distinct crimes.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion regarding a juror's passing by a crime scene, the admission of co-conspirator statements, the exclusion of a surrebuttal witness, the informant's fee arrangement, or the order of jury instructions.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the appellant's suitcase was incident to a lawful arrest, as the officers had probable cause based on independent investigation corroborating an informant's tip.
-
The dissenting judge believes border searches of international mail should not require a warrant, similar to other border searches.
-
-
The court held that an entry obtained by ruse or deception, without the application of force, does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
-
The court held that the delay in bringing the defendant to trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because the defendant suffered no prejudice.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief, finding no clear error in the lower court's findings.