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 a defendant is not entitled to force the government to elect between charges of possession with intent to distribute and actual distribution when both arise from a single transaction and concurrent sentences are imposed.
-
The court held that the defendant's statements were admissible because they were not made during custodial interrogation and co-conspirator statements were properly admitted.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction on count III.
-
The court held that the trial court's failure to conduct a preliminary hearing before admitting extrinsic offense evidence was not reversible error, as the appellate court could determine admissibility.
-
The court held that illegally seized evidence cannot be used for impeachment if the defendant's testimony on direct examination did not open the door to the subject matter.
-
594 F.2d 1103·
6th Cir.·
1979-03-29
·cited 8×
The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, hearsay evidence was admissible at the suppression hearing, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the failure of the trial judge to sua sponte give a limiting instruction regarding prior convictions for the same offense constitutes reversible error.
-
Prosecution by a foreign sovereign does not bar subsequent prosecution by the United States on double jeopardy grounds.
-
The court held that the classification of cocaine as a Schedule II narcotic drug under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is constitutional and has a rational basis.
-
Statements made by the defendant to customs agents before being informed of her Miranda rights were inadmissible because she was in custodial interrogation.
-
The court held that the sentencing judge did not err by relying on his understanding of cocaine's properties and did not abuse his discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the voir dire question regarding racial prejudice was adequate, the jury instructions were sufficient, and the evidence supported the convictions.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and seizure of cocaine were lawful under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by the delay in trial, the search and seizure were lawful, and the evidence admitted was relevant to the intent to distribute.
-
A sentencing court may consider information in a presentence report, even if disputed, provided it is not wholly unsubstantiated and difficult to rebut, and may consider sentences imposed on codefendants.
-
The court held that the detention of the appellant at the border was based on reasonable suspicion, making the subsequent identification by a co-conspirator admissible evidence.
-
The court held that the jury was justified in rejecting the entrapment defense and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and distribution of heroin.
-
The court held that the search warrant was valid, and the officers were justified in searching the defendant's person, leading to the seizure of contraband.
-
A defendant cannot claim entrapment based on a coconspirator's interactions with an informant when the defendant had no direct contact with the informant.
-
The court held that the denial of a continuance was within the trial court's discretion and that the legality of the arrest was irrelevant to the conviction.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the United States had jurisdiction over the smugglers' stateless vessel under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, sufficient evidence supported their convictions, and the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination.
-
Michael Albury was convicted of narcotics and firearm offenses after police discovered cocaine, crack cocaine, N-Benzylpiperazine pills, and firearms in two hotel rooms he occupied. Albury challenged the validity of the search warrant for room 332, arguing that the warrant was ba
-
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, evolving into a lawful investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and that the detention of the bag was reasonable. Discovery and continuance issues were also resolved against the defendant.
-
The court held that cornmeal, used to mimic the appearance of cocaine bricks and not as a diluent or carrier facilitating distribution, does not constitute a 'mixture or substance' under Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(c) for the purpose of calculating drug weight.
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions were not barred by double jeopardy, the indictments were not facially insufficient, and the evidence seized was admissible.
-
The court held that the delay caused by a codefendant's fugitive status was excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts or denying the motion for acquittal.
-
The court held that the government's actions in facilitating the defendant's importation of heroin into the United States did not improperly manufacture federal jurisdiction, and thus the indictment should not be dismissed.
-
The United States appealed a district court's grant of a new trial to Dr. Vicaria following his narcotics conviction, arguing the court abused its discretion by reconsidering its refusal to give a jury instruction on the defendant's theory of the case. The Eleventh Circuit held t
-
The court held that a per se reversal rule for admitting coconspirator hearsay without required findings is modified; instead, appellate courts should assess harmless error and may remand for findings if necessary. The hearsay error in this case was harmless.
-
The court held that for federal sentencing purposes, a marijuana cutting is considered a "plant" only if there is readily observable evidence of root formation, and not merely callus tissue.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support findings of constructive possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, and that the prosecutor's comment and jury instructions were not reversible error.
-
The court held that an unloaded firearm found in proximity to drugs is sufficient to support a conviction for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for drug trafficking charges and that the trial court did not err in admitting the drug ledger or expert testimony.
-
The court held that probable cause existed for the arrest, venue was proper for the use-of-a-juvenile charge, expert testimony was admissible, and the government need not prove the defendant knew the person used was underage.
-
The court held that the DEA agents' warrantless search of the residence fell within the protective sweep exception and that the district court did not err in excluding defendants from the in camera hearing for confidential informants.
-
The court held that the chain of custody for the cocaine was sufficiently established, affirming the convictions, but that a prior New York conviction for criminal facilitation did not qualify as a 'felony drug offense' to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence, thus vacating the s
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the defendant's attorney from testifying, as her testimony would have been cumulative, and affirmed the sentencing enhancement for firearm possession, finding sufficient evidence of connection to t
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's address, nor in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
A defendant's refusal to testify at a co-conspirator's trial after being granted immunity constitutes obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and that the district court did not err in its sentencing determination of the drug quantity.
-
The court affirmed the denial of motions to suppress evidence and statements, and the conviction, but vacated a portion of the sentence due to an incorrect penalty. The court also affirmed the denial of a motion challenging jury deliberations.
-
The court held that a drug quantity estimate used for sentencing need not meet rigorous statistical accuracy standards, only sufficient indicia of reliability.
-
Defendants were convicted of cocaine importation and related offenses. The Eleventh Circuit reversed Thomas Roker's convictions for 1983 substantive offenses because the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the statute of limitations defense, which had an evide
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove an agreement to possess cocaine, as charged in the indictment, and therefore the conspiracy conviction should be reversed.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no error in the Batson challenge, venue determination, denial of self-representation or continuance, or severance motions.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no plain error in the cross-examination, closing arguments, or jury instructions, and that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated.
-
The court held that the district court erred in relying solely on the presentence report's unsupported conclusions to determine drug quantities for sentencing, and that a serious question was raised regarding the attorney's conflict of interest. The court vacated the sentence and
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying a three-level upward adjustment for the defendant's supervisory role, but did not err in applying a two-level increase for weapon possession or denying a two-level decrease for minor participation.
-
The court held that striking a key defense witness's testimony for refusing to name a source, permitting inquiry into post-arrest silence, and providing erroneous jury instructions constituted reversible error.