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 a defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute if they procure customers and maintain the market, even without direct participation in obtaining or holding the drugs.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial when inadmissible hearsay testimony, which directly implicated the defendant in drug distribution, was presented to the jury, and the government's case was otherwise weak.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified law enforcement officers disregarding the "knock and announce" requirement when executing a search warrant.
-
The mandatory minimum penalties established for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841 apply to conspiracy to commit that offense under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
-
The court held that the seizure of the duffel bag did not occur until the agent informed the defendant he planned to keep it, and at that point, the agent had reasonable suspicion to do so.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a suppression hearing without adequately developing the record on whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area of the vehicle and whether probable cause existed for the search and arrest
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the plastic bag into evidence, as its chain of custody was sufficiently established.
-
The court held that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness whose prior testimony was admitted, and therefore, admitting the testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
-
The court held that the United States Coast Guard had jurisdiction to board the Panamanian-flagged vessel in international waters based on a Statement of No Objection (SNO) obtained from the State Department, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession wi
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing or reconsideration of the suppression motion, but the sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in determining the quantity of cocaine attributable to the defendant or in its procedural handling of the sentencing hearing.
-
The court held that the pre-arrest detention of the appellant was supported by probable cause, thus it was not a de facto arrest violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of consent to record a conversation was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the convictions.
-
The court held that defendants were entitled to a four-level reduction for minimal roles and a further downward departure because their minimal participation was present to a degree not contemplated by the guidelines.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting the defendant's constitutional claims and other arguments.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in accepting a stipulation regarding a witness's prior conviction, in sustaining a prosecutor's objection during closing argument, or in allowing the jury to rehear testimony. The court also found no basis to review the admission of
-
The court held that the initial warrantless entry into the defendant's residence was unlawful due to the absence of exigent circumstances, but remanded the case to determine if the subsequently issued search warrant was based on an independent source untainted by the illegal entr
-
The court held that the defendant waived arguments regarding limiting instructions for transcripts and minimal participation reduction, and that the admission of background hearsay testimony and the prosecutor's closing argument reference were not improper or plain error.
-
The court held that Federal Express records, microfilmed and maintained by the company, were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, even though the custodian lacked personal knowledge of their creation, and their admission did not violate conf
-
The court held that while the warrantless seizure of handguns from the defendant's home was erroneous, the error was harmless regarding the convictions, and the exclusionary rule does not apply to sentencing proceedings, thus affirming the convictions and sentences.
-
The dissenting judge would have remanded the case, finding the district court's determination of exigent circumstances to be clearly erroneous, but acknowledging the evidence might still be admissible.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no plain error in the prosecutor's closing argument and no ineffective assistance of counsel on the claims reviewable on direct appeal. The court declined to address one ineffective assistance claim due to an incomplete reco
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt, but vacated the fine imposed for costs of incarceration and supervised release.
-
The court held that the admission of a firearm under the plain view doctrine was proper, the jury charge on reasonable doubt did not constitute plain error, and the sentencing guidelines do not violate due process by allegedly vesting undue authority in prosecutors.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting claims of sentencing errors and ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the proffered testimony of the deceased co-defendant's attorney was inadmissible hearsay, even if it were not privileged, because it lacked trustworthiness and did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) or 804(b)(5).
-
The court held that the vehicle stop was based on reasonable suspicion derived from the totality of circumstances known to the officers, and that the necessity defense is inapplicable to drug addiction.
-
The court held that the defendant waived her right to challenge the legality of the search and seizure by failing to file a timely motion to suppress evidence, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue on appeal.
-
The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession that implicates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and such error is not harmless if the evidence against the defendant is not overwhelming.
-
The court held that the district court must hold a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the defendant's second confession, as the circumstances surrounding it may have involved official coercion.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the distribution of trial transcript portions to the jury.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion to recuse, finding no nexus between the prior appellate opinion or alleged sentencing disparities and the current judge's impartiality.
-
The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of cocaine involved was 500 grams or more, triggering the enhanced penalty provisions.
-
-
The court held that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful under parole search regulations and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and the exclusion of defense photographs was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that fingerprint evidence was admissible to connect the defendant to the offense and that pretrial detention was proper under the Bail Reform Act.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions for possession with intent to distribute heroin were supported by overwhelming evidence and that their claims of entrapment, improper informant payment, and unreliable transcripts were without merit.
-
The court held that a subsequent guilty verdict by the petit jury renders harmless any conceivable error in the grand jury charging decision, including alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that suppression of evidence was not an appropriate remedy because the agents did not use patient records to initiate or substantiate criminal charges against the defendant, and the "fatal blow" came from another individual's statement.
-
The Court reversed the Magistrate's pre-trial detention order, finding that the defendant rebutted the presumption of detention and setting conditions for release.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in calculating excludable days under the Speedy Trial Act, and thus the defendant's trial did not violate the Act's seventy-day limit.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and searches of the vehicle were justified under exceptions to the warrant requirement, including reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and the automobile exception.
-
Appellant was charged with drug trafficking and related offenses after a controlled drug buy. The trial court denied suppression motions without holding a formal evidentiary hearing as required by Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(h)(3). The appellate court reversed and reman
-
The use of a trained dog to sniff luggage for narcotics does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and a minor grammatical error in a search warrant does not invalidate it.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the defendant should have been given a fair opportunity to question a witness at the suppression hearing regarding alleged falsehoods in a search warrant affidavit.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's automobile's passenger compartment, including a container found therein, was permissible as incident to a lawful arrest.
-
The court held that the seizure of the black purse from the car was permissible under the automobile exception and its search was justified by the plain view doctrine, and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
-
The court held that evidence of prior misconduct was admissible to prove intent or knowledge.
-
The court held that the charge of possession with intent to distribute was valid even after a portion of the cocaine was distributed, and that the jury instruction regarding the legality of synthetic cocaine was not prejudicial error.