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 defendants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the Federal Speedy Trial Act, as the delays were properly excluded or within statutory limits.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's closing remarks, while potentially improper, did not constitute reversible error due to overwhelming evidence, and the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence was sufficient.
-
The court held that the trial court's errors in granting the government an additional peremptory challenge and delaying a ruling on a motion for acquittal were harmless, and that the jury instructions on conspirator liability were proper.
-
The court held that the defendants' knowing and voluntary waiver of their right to separate counsel, despite the trial court's expressed reservations, was effective, and joint representation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the defendant's challenges regarding the selective admission of wiretapped conversations, the accuracy of Spanish-to-English translations, and the jury's assessment of witness credibility were without merit.
-
The court held that the defendant's claims of constitutional violations and discovery infractions were without merit, as they were either factually unsupported by the record, procedurally defaulted, or did not demonstrate prejudice.
-
The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding entrapment, sufficiency of evidence for possession, and the government's witness list were without merit.
-
The court held that the defendants' entrapment defense failed as a matter of law and that inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate a conviction. Substantial evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its supplemental jury instructions.
-
The court held that the defendant's life sentence for a continuing criminal enterprise conviction was not so grossly disproportionate as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
-
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to unrelated crimes investigated before formal proceedings have begun for those crimes. Furthermore, prosecutorial questioning of a witness about another witness's credibility, if improper, does not warrant reversal if isolated
-
The court held that the initial stop and subsequent pat-down search were justified under the Fourth Amendment, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for unlawful reentry.
-
The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement was proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant knowingly participated in a conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated by the government's dismissal and reindictment procedure, and that compelling the defendant to speak specific phrases for voice identification did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing a coercion instruction and that any error in the jury instruction was harmless.
-
The court held that the defendant was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
-
The court held that placing a foot in a partially opened doorway to prevent it from closing, after the occupant opened it in response to a ruse, does not constitute a violation of the "knock and announce" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
-
The court affirmed the trial judge's grant of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in the judge's determination that admitting co-conspirator hearsay was an error that could not be cured by instruction.
-
The court held that while some jury instruction language should be avoided, the instructions given, when viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury that each element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the defendant's post-arrest statements and in refusing to sever the firearms charge.
-
A defendant cannot simultaneously deny committing the crime and assert the entrapment defense, and the trial court did not err in refusing to allow cross-examination about a witness's maximum potential sentence when that information was already ascertainable.
-
The court held that evidence derived from a Canadian wiretap was admissible because the investigation was solely Canadian and did not shock the judicial conscience or involve American agents acting as Canadian agents. It also held that voice exemplars and hearsay statements ident
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a lesser included offense instruction, admitting evidence of other acts, or denying the motion to dismiss the Travel Act count.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the exclusion of post-arrest hearsay statements and the giving of a missing-witness charge were not reversible errors.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's motions to suppress evidence, suppress an oral statement, deny individual voir dire, admit evidence of other crimes, or deny a continuance/mistrial for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
-
The court held that an unauthorized seizure does not require exclusion of subsequently discovered items if their discovery is traceable to a lawful independent source not tainted by improper conduct.
-
The court held that the defendant's claims of grand jury abuse and entitlement to a new trial based on overturned prior convictions lacked merit.
-
The dissent argues that the drug courier profile is an unconstitutional basis for seizure and that the conviction should be reversed due to insufficient cause.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and subsequent searches were supported by probable cause and voluntary consent, respectively, and thus, the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
-
The court held that the destruction of evidence by state authorities prior to federal indictment does not preclude federal prosecution, and the defendant was not denied a fair trial or effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that a defendant's explicit disclaimer of ownership and interest in a suitcase justified its search by law enforcement officers, and that a prosecutor's comments on evidence were permissible inferences.
-
The court held that the conviction on Count III, charging possession with intent to distribute a half-pound of cocaine, was valid as it represented the core of a single criminal transaction, and other counts were surplusage or improperly brought.
-
The court held that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence seized was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing due to a Supreme Court ruling on special parole terms for conspiracy convictions.
-
The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, and therefore the fruits of the arrest are admissible.
-
The court held that the customs officers had sufficient 'real suspicion' to conduct a strip search and that the evidence obtained was legally obtained.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error by proceeding to trial with the defendant representing himself, with standby counsel, after the defendant discharged his second appointed attorney and insisted on self-representation.
-
The court held that the arrest was not based on probable cause because the informant's tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and was not adequately corroborated by independent investigation.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcase was not justified by exigent circumstances and violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the appellant's confession was admissible because the arrest was based on probable cause and the confession was voluntarily given after the appellant initiated a conversation following his request for counsel.
-
The court held that while the prosecutor's ex parte substitution of interpreters was improper, it constituted harmless error as the defendant was not prejudiced. The chain of custody for the heroin was also adequately established.
-
Border searches conducted at the point of entry are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment without the need for probable cause or any quantum of individualized suspicion.
-
The court held that the appellants' arrest and the searches of the automobile trunk and footlocker were lawful, affirming their convictions.
-
The court held that the seizure and search of the Cadillac were lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and the drug ledger was properly admitted into evidence.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss or suppress testimony due to untimely compliance with pretrial orders, in failing to suppress evidence secured in violation of the Fourth Amendment, or in failing to grant a mistrial.
-
The court held that the appellant lacked standing to contest the search of his brother's car, and therefore, the drugs found therein were admissible.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the prosecutor's closing argument comment was a fair response to the defense. Entrapment is a question of fact for the jury.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and errors in jury instructions and the admission of evidence did not constitute plain error or prejudice requiring reversal.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a strip search, as probable cause existed due to corroborated informant information and exigent circumstances.