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 police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and that any improper cross-examination of an alibi witness was harmless error.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and any error in excluding hearsay testimony regarding Miranda rights was harmless.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked standing to contest the search of the storage unit and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the handwriting expert's testimony.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of conspiracy and that the search warrant affidavits were sufficient, affirming the convictions and sentences.
-
The court held that the defendant's actions constituted a substantial step in the commission of the crime, thus supporting his conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the encounter was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and any potential Miranda violation was harmless error.
-
The court reversed the conviction under the Travel Act because there was no proof of an overt act after the interstate travel.
-
The court held that the jury instructions adequately informed the jury of the agreement element for conspiracy and that the prosecutor's closing argument statements were fair characterizations of admitted evidence, not improper expressions of personal opinion.
-
The court held that the defendant established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection, requiring the government to provide a neutral explanation for its peremptory challenges.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a co-conspirator's statement after defense counsel opened the door, nor in its other evidentiary rulings, and affirmed the convictions.
-
The court held that the defendant's trial counsel's alleged errors, including the failure to present expert testimony on cancerphobia, did not materially prejudice the defense, and therefore did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the appellant's conviction and sentence were proper, rejecting his claims regarding the indictment, sufficiency of evidence, and suppression of evidence.
-
The court held that collateral estoppel does not apply when the federal government prosecutes after an unsuccessful state action due to the lack of identity of parties. The court also affirmed the admissibility of evidence seized and the convictions.
-
The court held that the government need not prove the seized substance was pure cocaine, but rather that it was a mixture containing cocaine, to satisfy the statutory weight requirement for drug offenses.
-
The court held that even if the government failed to lay a proper foundation for evidence concerning a coconspirator, the defendant's own testimony can supply the missing connection, making the evidence admissible when considering the record as a whole.
-
The court held that the defendant's detention did not exceed the boundaries of a permissible investigative detention, and therefore his consent to search was valid.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and mistrial motions, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, and that limiting evidence to a specific date was not plain error.
-
The court affirmed convictions, finding no reversible error in jury selection, rereading of testimony, merger of offenses, sufficiency of evidence, or admission of co-conspirator statements.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's car was constitutional under the automobile exception and that the seizure of firearms was valid under the plain view doctrine. Sufficient evidence also supported the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that co-conspirator hearsay was properly admitted because there was substantial independent evidence of a conspiracy and the defendant's participation in it.
-
The court held that the district court's findings adequately explained the disparity in sentencing between the defendant and his co-defendant, and that the sentence was not arbitrary.
-
The court held that the discovery of marijuana in plain view provided probable cause to search the entire vehicle, including containers within it, justifying the seizure of cocaine found in a champagne box in the trunk.
-
The court held that the subjective expectation of finding contraband does not invalidate an otherwise lawful inventory search of a vehicle. The objective reasonableness of the search is the controlling standard.
-
The court held that a defendant's unsworn statement to the jury, made with counsel's consent, does not constitute a waiver of counsel, and that the trial court did not err in balancing the right to impeach co-conspirators against the risk of prejudice to defendants.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination associating the defendant with an organized crime group was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the convictions.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to give a separate 'diminished capacity' jury instruction because the defense theory was substantially covered by the existing instructions on specific intent.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that while the trial court erred in refusing a curative instruction regarding the defendant's request for counsel, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that questioning the defendant about her ability to pay for counsel was permiss
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants and that their arrests and subsequent seizures were lawful, as probable cause existed.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the government's position, finding the detention reasonably related to the initial search and thus not an unreasonable intrusion.
-
The court held that the defendants were denied their rights under the Jencks Act due to the district court's abuse of discretion in denying a reasonable recess for reviewing voluminous Jencks Act materials, necessitating a new trial.
-
The court held that Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not permit a defendant to waive the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict in a federal criminal trial.
-
The court held that the cocaine found in the hotel room was admissible under the plain view exception and that the taped conversations were admissible as evidence of a single conspiracy.
-
Consecutive sentences were permissible for simultaneous possession of cocaine and a firearm, and for possession of two different firearms on separate occasions. The evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession.
-
The court held that keys seized during a warrantless arrest were admissible because the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and even if suppressed, there was ample other evidence to convict.
-
The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to acts of foreign officials unless federal agents substantially participated in a joint venture, and the unavailability of physical evidence does not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
-
Evidence and confession obtained from an illegal search and arrest are inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the dismissal of one count of an indictment by the government before trial does not constitute an amendment, and a conviction for possessing a Schedule II controlled substance is valid even if the substance is not medically classified as a narcotic.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's comment was not a manifest violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, any error regarding the destroyed booking sheet was harmless, and the admission of a codefendant's testimony was proper.
-
The court held that a defendant who voluntarily submits to U.S. customs inspection in a foreign country, knows they must disembark in the U.S., and entrusts heroin-laden baggage to a companion, is not a "true in-transit" passenger for purposes of the importation statute. The cour
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to quash the search warrant, the admission of the alleged confession, the reasonable doubt instruction, the prosecutor's closing argument, and the denial of post-trial motions were all without merit.
-
The court held that the warrantless search and seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine and that the admission of coconspirator hearsay was proper under the Oliva standard.
-
The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding delayed notification, Jencks Act sanctions, entrapment, and prior-crimes evidence did not warrant reversal.
-
The court held that while the conviction stands, the sentence must be reconsidered because the record does not affirmatively show the reasons for the more severe sentence imposed after retrial.
-
The court held that while the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit, one of his concurrent sentences must be vacated due to improper cumulative sentencing for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin.
-
The court held that the admission of twelve packets of heroin, even if discovered through an illegal search, was harmless error because overwhelming independent evidence established the appellant's guilt.
-
The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's duty to report to jail was reversible error due to its high prejudicial impact and low probative value. The court also held that the defendant was entitled to jury instructions on entrapment.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for possession and importation, and deeming any error in the conspiracy conviction harmless under the concurrent sentence doctrine.
-
The court held that the trial judge's erroneous and prejudicial limitation of the term 'rip-off' to narcotics transactions deprived the defendants of a fair trial.