56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
498 F.2d 535·
2d Cir.·
1974-06-05
·cited 6×
The court held that the search of the appellant's bag was lawful, evidence of the street value of the narcotics was properly admitted, and the exclusion of the appellant from a portion of the suppression hearing was also proper.
-
-
The court held that the trial judge's comments on credibility were not a premature ruling, the refusal to call additional witnesses was not an abuse of discretion, and a minor jury instruction error was harmless.
-
The court held that the hearsay statements of Wright regarding his suppliers, when used to implicate Stubblefield and Crawford, were unduly prejudicial and warranted reversal of their convictions.
-
The court held that the airport search was constitutional and the evidence was properly admitted, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the defendant waived the right to challenge the legality of a body cavity search by failing to raise the issue in the trial court and that the totality of circumstances justified the search.
-
Three members of the Gangster Disciples—Vertuies Wall, Lawrence Grice, and Lewis Mobley—appealed their convictions for RICO conspiracy and related offenses, with Grice challenging the sufficiency of evidence and Wall and Mobley challenging various aspects of their convictions and
-
A showup identification that was obtained through an unnecessarily suggestive procedure lacked sufficient indicia of reliability under the totality of circumstances, requiring suppression of all evidence derived from the resulting arrest.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of all defendants, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts and upholding the district court's evidentiary rulings.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the car's passenger compartment was a valid search incident to arrest, and the discovery of drugs provided probable cause to search the trunk and containers within. The court also found the initial trailer search was permissible under
-
The court held that jury instructions, though initially flawed, were adequately corrected by subsequent instructions, and that evidence of prior crimes and drug use was properly admitted. The evidence was also sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the district court's findings regarding the voluntariness of consent to search and the lack of taint from an allegedly unconstitutional x-ray were adequately supported by the evidence and law. The court also held that a Miranda claim regarding the discovery of
-
The court held that the trial judge's explicit explanation to the jury venire of the defendant's custody status and the reasons for security measures, including a comparison to Manuel Noriega, created an unacceptable risk of prejudice and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or procedural rulings.
-
The court held that the inventory search of the defendant's vehicle was lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence found, along with the defendant's confession, was admissible. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant "used" a firearm d
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting the affidavit, or in sentencing the defendants, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the encounter escalated into a full-fledged warrantless arrest without probable cause, rendering Leon's consent to search invalid.
-
The court held that the search warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause and that the district court did not err in denying motions for mistrial.
-
The court held that the exclusion of a witness's juvenile adjudication did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or constitute an abuse of discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 609(d).
-
Victor Vargas appealed his drug trafficking convictions, claiming the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial by waiting thirty-five months between his indictment in September 2018 and his arrest in August 2021. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district c
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a corrective jury instruction and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions under the prudent-smuggler doctrine.
-
The court held that while a procedural error occurred in sentencing, the record was sufficient for review, and the district court's factual finding that the firearm was connected to the offense foreclosed safety-valve relief.
-
The court held that the stop and search of the defendant's vehicle were lawful, and his sentence as a career offender was proper under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the sentence imposed.
-
The court held that the search of the arrestee's wallet and photocopying its contents was a valid search incident to arrest, and the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice was proper.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of Marrero and Barnes, but remanded Elwood's case for further findings regarding the admission of prior bad acts evidence.
-
The court held that the denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The court also held that Rosalio's prior Kansas felony drug conviction qualified for the enhanced mandatory minimum sentence.
-
The court held that the defendant waived his sentencing arguments by failing to raise them before the district court and that no plain error occurred. The court affirmed the sentence.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to distribute cocaine based on the defendant's ongoing relationship and actions with a co-conspirator.
-
The court held that the district court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to conduct an independent chemical analysis of the substance alleged to be cocaine base, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine.
-
The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that a DUI conviction discharged under Illinois supervision counts towards federal criminal history and that a downward departure sentence is not reviewable on appeal when it falls within the guidelines.
-
The court held that while admitting an agent's opinion that prior seized cash was drug proceeds was error, it was not prejudicial error, and thus the conviction is affirmed.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug offenses but reversed convictions for firearm offenses due to a defective jury instruction and insufficient evidence for two defendants.
-
The court held that the co-defendant's voluntary consent to search the vehicle cured any potential Fourth Amendment violation arising from the traffic stop and subsequent detention, and that evidence of flight and prior convictions were properly admitted.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's pocket for cocaine was permissible under Terry v. Ohio, but the search of his vehicle for a gun was not incident to a lawful arrest.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the cocaine's existence or aided and abetted its possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search and that their detention was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, thus affirming their convictions.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for the district court to modify its sentencing memorandum and comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(D).
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, excluding prior bad acts evidence, admitting telephone records, or denying a missing witness instruction, affirming the conviction.
-
981 F.2d 697·
4th Cir.·
1992-11-24
·cited 4×
The court held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the petitioner's drug convictions, and the jury's consideration of stricken testimony did not violate his rights.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in its Jencks Act determinations, its admission of coconspirator statements, its jury instructions, or its sentencing procedures, and that any errors were harmless.
-
The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court affirmed Centracchio's sentence and Guth's sentence on the conspiracy count, but remanded Guth's sentence on the possession count for a determination of whether his conduct extended beyond the effective date of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court was not required to conduct a Rule 44(c) hearing at sentencing when the alleged conflict arose at trial and was not known or reasonably knowable by the court at that time.
-
The court held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction if there is any evidence, however weak, that rationally supports acquittal on the greater offense and conviction on the lesser.
-
A district court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial based solely on minor inconsistencies in police testimony, which are credibility issues for the jury, or by rejecting witness testimony based on a jury's decision in a different case.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror for just cause and proceeding with an eleven-person jury, nor did it err in calculating the defendant's sentence based on the total amount of heroin involved in the conspiracy.
-
The court held that the traffic stop was valid, the defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and the search did not exceed the scope of the consent.
-
The court held that the government's remedies for a defendant's breach of an informal immunity agreement are limited to those specified in the agreement itself, and cannot include prosecuting the defendant for the underlying immunized offenses if the agreement only permits prosec
-
The court held that a prior conviction punishable by more than one year imprisonment is a felony for career offender status, regardless of state law classification or juvenile sentencing, if committed after age 18.
-
An upward departure from the sentencing guideline range is permissible under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1 when the victim of the death is not the direct victim of the offense of conviction, as long as there is a sufficient nexus between the death and the offense.