56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,102 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The concurring judge disagrees with the circuit's developing law regarding when retaining an airline ticket constitutes a seizure.
-
The court held that the search warrant was not impermissibly broad and that there was sufficient evidence to support the firearm conviction.
-
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of prior drug transactions to show intent and knowledge, nor was there improper prosecutorial comment on the failure to call an alibi witness.
-
A defendant charged with drug importation and possession need not know the specific type or amount of the controlled substance, only that they possessed a controlled substance.
-
-
The court held that the government's action in selling narcotics to a suspected buyer, even in a reverse buy operation, does not constitute outrageous misconduct that violates due process or warrants dismissal under supervisory power.
-
The court held that a limited patdown at the border, even if not strictly routine, was justified by reasonable suspicion, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no constitutional violations and no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion improperly deviates from binding precedent, United States v. Sarmiento, which held that customs officers lack authority to board vessels on the high seas.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcases was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the imminent departure of the suspects created exigent circumstances, and the officers reasonably chose between searching the luggage or detaining the suspects.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of a locked briefcase found in an impounded vehicle was constitutional as a valid inventory search.
-
The court held that a judge is not bound by a prosecutor's sentencing recommendation, even if included in a plea agreement, as long as the defendant is aware of this. The court also held that convictions under separate statutes for a single act are permissible if each statute req
-
The court held that the district court erred in finding the appellant's statement was a spontaneous utterance, and remanded for factual findings on whether the appellant was in custody for Miranda purposes.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or prejudicial, thus not meeting the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of both Anthony and Cheryl Pipito, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings or the sufficiency of the evidence.
-
The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar a second trial because the prosecution did not intentionally provoke the mistrial, and the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements or in its communication with the jury.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence obtained from wiretaps, vehicle searches, and residence searches, affirming the convictions.
-
Violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)(2) in obtaining a search warrant via telephone were not egregious enough to warrant suppression of the evidence, as they did not prejudice the defendant or demonstrate intentional disregard for the rule.
-
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly raised on direct appeal, and other claims regarding hearsay, sufficiency of evidence, and new trial motions lacked merit.
-
The court held that a district court has discretion to reject a guilty plea if it believes the defendant is not being truthful during the allocution, and that requiring peremptory challenges to be exercised publicly does not deny a fair trial.
-
The court held that there was sufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy to justify the admission of co-conspirator statements and sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy.
-
The court held that the district court's procedure, including a public adversarial hearing and a subsequent in camera inquiry, adequately addressed the defendant's challenge to the veracity of the search warrant affidavit under Franks v. Delaware, especially given the need to pro
-
The court held that the admission of prior conspiracy convictions into evidence to prove intent and identity in a trial for substantive crimes was an abuse of discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
-
The district court affirmed the magistrate's pretrial detention orders for both defendants, finding that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure their appearance and the safety of the community.
-
The court held that at least sixteen days in May were excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, meaning the defendants received a timely trial.
-
The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of the suitcase because the government failed to present admissible evidence of abandonment.
-
The court held that the government's failure to disclose certain witness statements did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the request for the information was general, and the undisclosed evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial.
-
The court held that the defendants were not unlawfully seized, the search of the travel bag was proper, and there was probable cause for Cipriano's arrest.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting or excluding evidence, nor was the evidence insufficient to convict the defendants.
-
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding telephone conversations, which constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause, was prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
-
The court held that an informant's tip, even with minor inaccuracies, when corroborated by independent investigation, can provide sufficient probable cause for a search warrant under the totality of the circumstances test.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of distributing and possessing heroin with intent to distribute.
-
When invoking the concurrent sentence doctrine, the court must either vacate the unreviewed conviction or reject the doctrine and review the conviction on the merits; affirming without review is improper.
-
The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant is admissible if the lawfully obtained information in the affidavit amounts to probable cause and would have justified issuance of the warrant apart from any tainted information.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motions for a new trial, as the evidence supported the finding that consent to search was voluntary.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the appellant's locked suitcase was unconstitutional because the luggage was under the control of authorities and there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that a formal written waiver of Miranda rights is not required, and a voluntary waiver can be inferred from the circumstances.
-
The court held that the government's withholding of certain information did not violate Brady v. Maryland or the Jencks Act, and thus did not deny the defendant a fair trial.
-
The court held that the evidence of possession was sufficient and that the defendant's admission was voluntary and admissible, despite not signing a waiver form.
-
The court held that admitting testimony about a co-defendant's prior conviction was gravely prejudicial and reversible error.
-
The court held that the failure to record a brief bench discussion was harmless error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for severance and relief from prejudicial error.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellants' convictions for importing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding defense impeachment evidence, admitting evidence of other crimes, or in the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
-
The court held that the conviction for distributing cocaine was valid despite acquittal on possession with intent to distribute, and that the defenses of buyer's agent and entrapment lacked merit.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the Felonies Clause, and that the Felonies Clause is not limited by international law.
-
The court granted in part the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, finding insufficient factual allegations and causation, and granted in part the motion to strike affirmative defenses, treating some as denials and dismissing others with leave to replead.
-
Pretrial detention is mandated because the defendant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of being a flight risk and a danger to the community, and the government presented sufficient independent evidence to support these findings.