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 district court's error in denying a party the opportunity to impeach a witness was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines applied to the defendant's conviction were consistent with the Sentencing Reform Act and governing statutes.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to ask specific voir dire questions regarding potential juror prejudice against the defendant's national origin or religion, nor in refusing questions probing juror bias towards law enforcement, as the case
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a mistrial based on the failure to allow a reasonable opportunity for the defense to request a poll of the jury after the verdict was read.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's remark about the defendant's non-citizenship was not preserved for appeal and, even if considered on the merits, was not prejudicial. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to
-
A federal defendant's failure to raise constitutional claims on direct appeal constitutes a procedural default barring review in a § 2255 petition, absent cause and prejudice.
-
The court held that lawful possession of property, even if containing contraband, carries a legitimate expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a guilty plea solely because the defendant refused to incriminate a co-defendant, but found the error to be harmless as the defendant was ultimately convicted of the same offense.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the motions to suppress, the convictions, and the sentence, finding that the encounters were consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause, and that the evidence and sentencing were proper.
-
The dissent argues that the facts of this case are indistinguishable from a prior controlling precedent, United States v. White.
-
The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in excluding expert testimony, in its jury charge regarding the defendant's right not to testify, or in denying the motion for a new trial.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a vehicle's engine compartment was permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by probable cause, even if the probable cause argument was not initially raised by the government.
-
The court held that a district court's announcement of a blanket prohibition against readbacks of testimony before jury deliberations is reversible error.
-
The court held that the district court's acceptance of the guilty plea was contingent on review of the presentence report and that the district court failed to adequately state its reasons for the sentencing enhancement, requiring remand.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, the motion for a new trial, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that prior drug sales, even if not part of the offense of conviction, can be included in calculating the base offense level if they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan.
-
-
The court held that the defendant waived her double jeopardy claim by consenting to a mistrial and that collateral estoppel did not bar retrial because the jury's acquittal on the importation charge did not necessarily decide the issue of knowledge in her favor.
-
The dissent argues that the majority's reasoning improperly extends the Terry stop doctrine into private residences and misapplies the totality of the circumstances test, thereby eroding Fourth Amendment protections.
-
The court held that a document filed with the district court within forty days of judgment, even if not a formal notice of appeal, can confer jurisdiction if later validated by a motion to extend time.
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to search was voluntary and the secondary inspection was permissible, affirming his conviction.
-
The court held that the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the failure to advise him of the potential for supervised release extension, entitling him to plead anew.
-
The court held that the application of career offender provisions and the denial of a downward departure based on age and health were proper.
-
949 F.2d 24·
2d Cir.·
1991-10-25
·cited 2×
A "standing alone" jury instruction, stating that character evidence alone may create reasonable doubt, is not required in federal criminal trials. The court also held that an agent's testimony regarding general DEA policy on informant reliability, in response to defense cross-ex
-
The court held that the state police's search of the truck, based on the DEA's suspicion and request, was permissible under the collective knowledge doctrine, and the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument did not warrant a new trial.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial judge's concerns about evidence tampering did not warrant acquittal or reversal, and that the jury's role in assessing credibility was paramount.
-
The court held that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and therefore reversed that conviction and a related firearm conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, but sufficient for other drug and weapons offenses, and that the search of the vehicle was justified. The court also found no Brady violation regarding an alleged witness agreement.
-
The court held that warrantless border searches were supported by reasonable suspicion and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury did not warrant dismissal of the indictment.
-
The court affirmed the district court's enhancement for possession of firearms but remanded for further findings regarding the classification of a small quantity of drugs as cocaine base.
-
The court held that there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the defendant's confession, supporting her conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Lodato's convictions, the 'oral intercept' was properly authorized, the exclusion of the answering machine tape was within the court's discretion, and drug dependency is not a basis for downward departure under the guidel
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to reduce the defendant's sentence for acceptance of responsibility, nor in calculating his criminal history points.
-
The court held that the initial encounter between the defendant and the officers was not a Fourth Amendment seizure because, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to leave. The court also found no error in quashing the defendant's subpo
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, the motion to dismiss for ineffective assistance of counsel, in restricting testimony, in refusing to admit evidence, in denying the motion in limine, or in calculating the sentence.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting or excluding evidence, or in its jury instructions, and affirmed the convictions.
-
926 F.2d 418·
5th Cir.·
1991-03-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the display of marijuana evidence, admitting evidence of a co-defendant's actions, or in its sufficiency of evidence determination.
-
The court held that the undisclosed evidence was not material, meaning there was no reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the outcome of the trial.
-
A defendant can be liable as an aider or abetter of a 'causer' and as a co-conspirator under the Pinkerton theory, even when the principal's liability is based on causing an act to be done under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
-
The court held that criminal history points were properly assessed and that evidence seized from the defendant's truck and person was admissible.
-
A police officer has probable cause to arrest a defendant based on an informant's tip when a substantial portion of that tip is corroborated by the officer's personal observation, even if the informant is not previously known to be reliable.
-
The court held that a witness's testimony about their understanding of an immunity agreement, which required truthful testimony, did not constitute improper vouching by the government. The court also held that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing a sen
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no plain error regarding a witness's mention of prior imprisonment, and no Brady violation.
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding entrapment, prosecutorial misconduct, sentencing reduction, and Brady violations.
-
The court held that the consent to search and the defendant's flight did not sufficiently attenuate the connection between the initial unconstitutional intrusion and the discovery of evidence.
-
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply to state searches conducted by state officers with state warrants, even if the evidence is used in a federal prosecution. Such searches need only conform to federal constitutional standards.
-
The court held that a defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver of a mistrial, even when counsel believes a mistrial is in the defendant's best interest, prevents the defendant from later claiming the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in finding exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry to prevent destruction of evidence or flight of suspects.
-
The court held that a defendant's repeated denials of ownership of a suitcase preclude him from asserting a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in its contents, even if the detention of the suitcase ripened into a de facto arrest.
-
The court held that the evidence was properly seized pursuant to a consensual search, and thus the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.