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 jury instructions on entrapment were erroneous because they failed to inform the jury that a paid government informer, acting as a surrogate, could also perpetrate entrapment.
-
The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the defense counsel was misled by a court law clerk regarding jury instructions on lesser included offenses.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to dismiss for excessive delay or in refusing to give a purchasing agent instruction.
-
The court held that the accumulation of trial incidents, particularly the government's failure to make reasonable efforts to produce a crucial informant witness, significantly hampered the defense and denied the defendant a fair trial.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination regarding a polygraph examination and state parole status, as appellants were afforded sufficient opportunity to explore witness motives.
-
The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding entrapment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a jury instruction were without merit or moot.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for severance or mistrial, nor in its evidentiary rulings, as the co-defendant's testimony, while potentially prejudicial, was relevant and the defendant's own defense of entrapment opened the door
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of drug trafficking found years after the charged conspiracy as intrinsic evidence, and that the failure to provide a limiting instruction for evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) was also an abuse
-
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, holding that while the warrantless entry into the Karenway apartment violated the Fourth Amendment, the subsequent search warrant was based on independent information, rendering the evidence admissible. Other challenges regarding
-
The majority holds that the district court erred in suppressing evidence, applying the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The dissent argues that erroneous information generated by an officer's negligence cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion or justify the
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that a discovery violation was not prejudicial, comments on post-arrest silence were harmless error, and a deliberate ignorance instruction, though erroneous, was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of actual knowledge.
-
-
The court held that the officers' actions did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because a reasonable person would have felt free to decline to answer questions or leave the bus.
-
897 F.2d 639·
2d Cir.·
1990-02-26
·cited 9×
The court held that a defendant tried in absentia on a superseding indictment must be arraigned on that indictment if it is substantially different from the one previously arraigned upon, to ensure knowing waiver of the right to presence. The court also held that while counsel's
-
The court affirmed the denial of motions to suppress evidence, motions for severance, and motions for a new trial, but certified a Sixth Amendment question regarding the release of seized funds to the Supreme Court.
-
The court held that evidence obtained from an illegal search is admissible under the inevitable discovery exception if a private party's lawful conduct would have inevitably led to its discovery.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied Kett's motion to vacate his sentence, as his claims regarding outrageous government conduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and preclusion of an entrapment defense lacked merit.
-
A deficient post-arrest complaint under Rule 5(a) does not retroactively invalidate a warrantless arrest if probable cause existed at the time of arrest, and the district court may consider evidence outside the complaint on a motion to suppress.
-
The Sixth Amendment speedy trial right is not triggered by a prior state arrest or indictment; probable cause for arrest existed based on informant's tip confirmed by discovery of cocaine on a companion.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from Davis, finding the encounter was consensual and any subsequent detention was a justified investigatory stop, and that the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice wa
-
The court held that the defendants' trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, as their actions were either reasonable tactical decisions or did not result in prejudice to the defendants' cases.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of gang membership and prior drug dealings, denying motions for mistrial, and utilizing mass jury selection, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to substitute counsel and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant was a member of the conspiracy and possessed cocaine. However, the court reversed in part, fin
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's home was lawful despite the officers' failure to strictly adhere to the knock-and-announce rule, and that the admission of certain witness statements and evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial, applying the Sentencing Guidelines, denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, or including a 1970 conviction in the criminal history category.
-
The court held that the defendant's contentions lacked merit, except for the issue concerning the fine under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which the government conceded. The conviction is affirmed.
-
The court held that the district court's calculation of the base offense level was proper and that post-sentence guideline amendments are to be pursued in the district court, not applied by the appellate court on direct review.
-
The court held that while the district court erred in admitting drug courier profile testimony and evidence of a marijuana cigarette, these errors were harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of drug and firearm offenses, and that the mandatory statutory sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. However, the court also noted that only one consecutive sentence under § 924(c)(1) could be imp
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment, nor in refusing to provide a jury instruction defining 'reasonable doubt'.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on the drug possession and firearm charges.
-
The court held that the encounters between the detectives and the defendants did not constitute Fourth Amendment seizures and that the searches were consensual or based on reasonable suspicion.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in including the full amount of cocaine found in the defendant's possession for sentencing purposes, as it was permissible to infer the defendant's knowledge of all the drugs.
-
The court affirmed the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice and leadership role, finding no clear error in the district court's factual findings and application of the guidelines.
-
The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights are not violated when a witness refuses to answer collateral questions on Fifth Amendment grounds, especially when the refusal itself can be used to impeach the witness's credibility.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of all four defendants, finding no merit in their various challenges regarding speedy trial rights, suppression of evidence, jury bias, and sentencing enhancements.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance, no jurisdictional defect, and no error in admitting evidence.
-
A defendant waives their right to appeal an in limine ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction under Rule 609(a)(1) if they preemptively introduce that conviction during their own direct examination. Mandatory minimum sentence provisions in pre-existing statutes control
-
The court held that the encounter with the defendant was consensual and that there was reasonable suspicion to detain his luggage for a canine sniff, thus the motion to suppress was properly denied. The evidence was also sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the detention of the defendant at the border was justified by reasonable suspicion that he was smuggling contraband internally, and thus the denial of his motion to suppress evidence was proper.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in calculating the defendant's sentence by attributing additional kilograms of cocaine based on wrappers and by applying a firearm enhancement despite a prior acquittal on a weapons charge.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-point enhancement for the defendant's supervisory role in drug distribution, as the evidence supported a conspiracy between the defendant and his wife.
-
The court affirmed the sentence, holding that even if the district court erred in calculating the criminal history score by including uncounseled convictions, the alleged errors did not rise to the level of plain error because they did not affect the defendant's substantial right
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense and for the defendant's leadership role, nor in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
-
The court held that the denial of the severance motion was error because the mutually antagonistic defenses presented by the co-defendants created substantial prejudice, denying them a constitutionally fair trial.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in its Batson ruling, admitting evidence seized from a sub-let room, or in enhancing the sentence for firearm possession.
-
The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the admission of expert testimony regarding drug courier profiles was error but harmless, and the defendant was not denied an opportunity to respond to objections to the pre-sentence report.
-
The court held that a defendant's oral consent given in chambers, followed by silence in open court, can constitute a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to a twelve-member jury under Rule 23(b).
-
Sentencing a defendant for offense conduct known to the prosecution before trial but not charged in the indictment violates due process.
-
The court held that the filing of a superseding indictment did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.