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 defendant was not unlawfully seized and waived his right to appeal the ruling on the clothing demonstration by failing to testify.
-
The court held that the tape recording of a conversation between the defendant and an informant may have been erroneously admitted because the record lacked evidence of consent to the interception, and this error was not harmless.
-
The court held that the admission of a buy report was harmless error and that the defendant's failure to pay Texas court costs meant he was under a criminal justice sentence, justifying an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that striking one of two black venirepersons, based solely on percentages, does not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Batson, and that probable cause and consent for searches were validly established.
-
The court held that the district judge failed to adequately explain his departure from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, requiring a remand for resentencing. The supervised release sentence was affirmed.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove the defendant knowingly participated in a conspiracy to transport illegal drugs.
-
The court's use of 'slight evidence' or 'slight connection' language in conspiracy cases is problematic and should be reexamined or discarded in favor of clearer formulations.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient probable cause for arrest and search, admissible evidence, and adequate proof for conspiracy, possession, and Travel Act violations.
-
-
The court held that redacted affidavits supporting warrants are permissible when necessary to protect informant safety, provided the remaining information establishes probable cause and the defendant is given adequate notice of redactions. The court also affirmed the admissibilit
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give the jury an instruction on entrapment, nor in denying the motion for acquittal based on outrageous governmental conduct.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict against Hunter, and the detention of Cooper's luggage was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's locked briefcase was lawful as a search incident to arrest, and the indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon was sufficient.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute 16 ounces and 1 gram of heroin, but insufficient for the 1-ounce conviction. The court also affirmed the mandatory minimum sentence imposed.
-
The removal of a sole holdout juror for acquittal on the fourth day of deliberations, particularly when the grounds for removal are unclear and the judge's remarks may have prejudiced the remaining jurors, constitutes reversible error.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's suppression order, arguing that the driver did not have apparent authority to consent to the search of an enclosed compartment when the lessee was present.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence, including circumstantial corroboration of post-arrest statements, supported the conviction, and that the sentence was properly imposed.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiring to possess and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the sealed boxes was permissible under the Fourth Amendment because the contents were previously lawfully discovered and there was no substantial likelihood the contents had been changed. The evidence was also sufficient to support th
-
The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single conspiracy and that the admission of evidence concerning other deals was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the DEA agents had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile characteristics, suspicious behavior, and a large quantity of cocaine found.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence and affirmed the conviction, finding the stop, seizure, and search warrant were lawful.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the garage, the detention and arrest of the defendant, and the subsequent pat-down search were all lawful, supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
-
The court should remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law because the district court denied a suppression motion without adequate findings, making appellate review impossible.
-
The court held that the absence of counsel at sentencing invalidates the sentences, requiring remand for resentencing. However, other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
-
The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence presented, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that cross-examination of government witnesses regarding their reasons for choosing to affirm rather than swear on the Koran was properly precluded by Federal Rule of Evidence 610, as such inquiry would delve into religious beliefs and potentially prejudice the jur
-
The court held that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for the magistrate to find probable cause to search the defendant's residence.
-
The court held that Pittsburgh International Airport can be considered the functional equivalent of a border for Fourth Amendment purposes when a package arrives from a foreign point of departure and remains under customs bond until searched at its final destination. The court al
-
The court affirmed Gonzalez's conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, finding sufficient evidence of substantial income, but upheld the setting aside of Ayala's conviction due to insufficient proof of substantial income.
-
The court held that Arthur Avery's perjury count was properly joined and severance was not warranted, but Alisa Avery's conviction must be reversed due to a Bruton violation from her father's grand jury testimony.
-
Evidence obtained after an illegal entry but pursuant to a subsequently obtained valid warrant is admissible if the warrant was not based on information from the illegal entry.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause for the warrantless arrest of Bubis, and consequently, the arrest of Bass and the seizure of evidence were lawful.
-
The court held that the trial judge erred by failing to make a preliminary finding on the voluntariness of the defendant's incriminating statement before submitting it to the jury.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the second indictment without prejudice due to a miscalculation of the Speedy Trial Act period, and that restrictions on cross-examination and defense witness testimony were not an abuse of discretion.
-
The trial court's exclusion of defendant's statements regarding his intent to cooperate and anger was error, but harmless, because the jury was already aware of significant cooperation and other strong evidence indicated the defendant's knowledge of the heroin.
-
The court held that the DEA agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and probable cause to seize the appellant's suitcase, and that the admission of cash evidence was proper.
-
The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applied to each element of the charged offenses, despite potentially confusing language.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to connect the defendant to the cocaine, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.
-
The court held that the district judge's supplemental jury instructions indicated a predilection for a guilty verdict, denying the defendant a fair and impartial trial.
-
The court held that the conspiracy conviction must be reversed due to a vague indictment and insufficient jury instructions that failed to connect the law to the specific facts of the case. The court also remanded for resentencing on the possession and distribution counts due to
-
The court held that the defendant's statements were admissible because they were not made in the context of a plea bargain and that evidence of marijuana possession was admissible as part of the same transaction or under Rule 404(b).
-
The court held that the admission of "guilt by association" testimony, concerning the prior convictions of the defendant's acquaintances, was highly prejudicial and reversible error, especially without a proper curative instruction.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to poll the jury regarding prejudicial publicity and in failing to adequately instruct the jury on the definition of 'agent' in the context of an entrapment defense.
-
The court held that the district court's refusal to permit cross-examination of a government witness regarding his bias violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, requiring reversal of both convictions.
-
The court held that the Government sufficiently proved the seized substance was L-cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt and that Arias's conviction for telephone use was not impermissibly inconsistent with his acquittal on other charges.
-
The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for importing cocaine and possessing it with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the search warrant was sufficiently specific and the seizure of additional furniture was justified under the plain view doctrine.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a sentencing hearing when the government limited its reliance to the facts of the present charge and the judge was not affected by disputed characterizations. However, the court vacated the special parole term as it wa
-
613 F.2d 1045·
D.C. Cir.·
1979-11-29
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court's finding on remand regarding the admissibility of the petitioner's prior shoplifting conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) was insufficient due to a lack of adequate inquiry into the nature and circumstances of the conviction.