56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the government from appealing a judgment of acquittal entered by a judge based on insufficient evidence presented at trial.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy and possession of narcotics with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the motion to suppress was properly denied because customs agents had probable cause to search, seize, and arrest the defendant and his companions.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction of the defendants for conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court's jury instructions did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's improper question about the defendant's prior criminal record, though unanswered and sustained by the court, did not prejudice the defendant or deprive him of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcase at the port of entry was legal, and the subsequent arrest in the hotel room was justified by exigent circumstances. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court's handling of a potentially biased juror.
-
The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible, despite his claims of coercion and language barriers.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's application of a firearms enhancement, finding sufficient nexus between the rifle and the drug offenses.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search due to exigent circumstances, that the evidence was sufficient to support Bastar's convictions, and that the denial of the motion for a new trial was p
-
The introduction of evidence of a defendant's failure to appear to show consciousness of guilt in a prior narcotics trial does not bar a subsequent prosecution for bail jumping, as the offenses have different operative facts and the evidence was not used to establish an essential
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions to disclose the confidential informant, denying severance, denying a mistrial, refusing a vicarious entrapment instruction, and admitting evidence of cocaine found in a defendant's wallet.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the forfeiture of cash was permissible.
-
The court held that the detention of mail packages for a dog-sniff test, without delaying their delivery, does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence demonstrated the appellants' willful participation in the drug conspiracy, supporting their convictions.
-
The court held that while prosecutorial conduct before the grand jury was criticized, it did not rise to the level of reversible error or prejudice, and other claims lacked merit, thus affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the arrest of the appellant for driving with a suspended license was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even if the officer had a suspicion of narcotics offenses, because a reasonable officer would have made the arrest under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the airport detention and search were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and the admission of evidence, including Attardi's notes, was proper or harmless error.
-
The court held that the brother's search of the defendant's room was not a state action, and there was sufficient independent evidence to prove conspiracy.
-
The court held that the search warrant was valid despite a misrepresentation about an informant's status, and that the late disclosure of passports did not prejudice the defendants.
-
A defendant's eligibility for the safety valve provision is not automatically forfeited due to continuing criminal activity or providing information only after being confronted, as long as all information is truthfully provided by the sentencing hearing.
-
A within-guideline sentence is substantively reasonable, and a district court does not err by imposing standard conditions of supervised release without orally describing each, provided the defendant had notice and opportunity to object.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instruction, or the denial of a safety valve reduction.
-
Tavares Williams was convicted by jury of selling cocaine and marijuana within 1000 feet of a school and public housing facility. The appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of guilt bec
-
The court held that the weight of waste water containing a trace amount of cocaine base should not be included in the sentencing calculation, but remanded for further findings on the role in the offense enhancement.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err by not giving a voluntariness instruction for a confession when the defendant did not request it or object to its introduction.
-
The court held that while admitting evidence of the defendant's positive drug tests for impeachment was proper, the failure to provide an immediate limiting instruction to the jury constituted plain error.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was not reversible based on prior circuit precedent, despite the dissenting judge's view that the precedent was misapplied.
-
The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one possession conviction due to insufficient evidence, remanding for resentencing. The court also addressed the admissibility of grand jury testimony.
-
The court held that the sentence enhancement for drug offenses near a protected location applies to any drug offense committed within 1,000 feet of a school, and that a notebook found with drugs and drug paraphernalia was admissible with a limiting instruction.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that jury instructions were adequate, evidence supported convictions for conspiracy, possession, and firearm offenses, and entrapment defense was not warranted.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's luggage and her detention at the border constituted a routine border inspection, which did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence was clearly erroneous because the traffic stop was pretextual and not based on a reasonable officer's objective interest in enforcing the traffic violation.
-
The court held that the stop and frisk of the defendant were based on reasonable suspicion and that supervised release was a permissible sentence under the relevant statutes.
-
The court held that a jury instruction stating possession of a substantial quantity of a controlled substance alone may be sufficient to support a finding of knowing possession was erroneous. Such an instruction improperly intrudes on the jury's deliberative process.
-
The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the substance of the buyer-seller relationship issue, and therefore, there was no reasonable probability of a different trial outcome had the requested instruction been given.
-
A law enforcement officer testifying as an eyewitness may not refuse to answer questions about the location from which observations were made if that information is relevant and helpful to the defense, and the district court erred in sustaining relevancy objections to defense que
-
A random stop of an automobile without reasonable suspicion, objectively gauged and based on articulable facts, violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence arising from such a stop must be suppressed.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, following precedent that simultaneous possession of distinct controlled substances can be prosecuted separately.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural flaws in the sentencing calculation.
-
The court held that a defendant cannot be sentenced separately for a lesser-included offense (cocaine conspiracy) when also convicted of a greater offense (continuing criminal enterprise) for the same conduct. It also held that multiple firearms used in relation to a single drug-
-
The court held that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even if the officers did not strictly comply with the "knock and announce" statute, and that Rueda's confession was admissible.
-
The court held that the implicit detention of the suspect was inherently coercive, rendering any subsequent consent to search invalid.
-
The court held that a conscious avoidance jury instruction was properly given because the evidence supported a finding that the defendant was aware of a high probability that the suitcase contained drugs and deliberately avoided confirming this fact. The court also held that a co
-
The court held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation under Miranda, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal argument and the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice were proper.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that the sentencing based on estimated drug quantity was not clearly erroneous.
-
The court held that the detention of suspected alimentary canal drug smugglers, even for extended periods exceeding 100 hours, was constitutional if supported by reasonable suspicion and justified by the suspects' own actions in delaying the expulsion of contraband.
-
982 F.2d 1192·
8th Cir.·
1992-12-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting new trials and severance, and that the motions for new trial were timely filed under a liberal construction of Rule 33.
-
The court held that a malfunction in the court reporting system does not automatically warrant a new trial; prejudice must be shown, and defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice from the missing portions of the transcript.
-
The court held that the mother's consent to search was voluntary and that the admission of a prior conviction did not require a new trial. The evidence was sufficient to support the firearm conviction, and the obstruction of justice enhancement was proper.
-
The court held that the district court erred in admitting extraneous evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because its probative value was slight and substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.