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 evidence was sufficient to prove a single conspiracy and that the admission of coconspirator statements and the denial of severance motions were proper.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in giving a flight instruction, admitting evidence of bond forfeiture, admitting evidence of a prior conviction, or imposing consecutive sentences.
-
562 F.2d 681·
D.C. Cir.·
1977-04-06
·cited 63×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's constructive possession of drugs and intent to distribute, and that the trial court properly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.
-
The court held that Sylvester's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the recording of conversations with an informant and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court reversed Judith's conviction, finding insufficient evidence that she knowingly part
-
The court held that while the statement was against the declarant's penal interest, the trial judge's determination that corroborating circumstances did not clearly indicate the statement's trustworthiness was not clearly erroneous.
-
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove firearm possession and interstate commerce, and that negotiated drug quantities were properly included in sentencing calculations.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for importing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute was supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
-
The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the initial encounter was consensual, the subsequent investigative detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the detention of his luggage was within constitutional limits.
-
The court affirmed the conviction of appellant Childs and Raper for unlawful possession of heroin with intent to distribute, finding sufficient evidence for constructive possession.
-
The court held that the government's privilege to withhold an informant's identity must yield when the informant's testimony is essential to a fair determination of the accused's defense, particularly when the informant was a participant in the criminal activity and their testimo
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and using a communication facility, and that the voice identification testimony was proper.
-
The court held that the exclusion of the defense investigator's testimony regarding statements made by a third party (Meek) was reversible error, as it deprived the defendant of a fair opportunity to present his entrapment defense.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, in its voir dire, or in excluding defense witnesses, and that the speedy trial claim was without merit. However, it found that Counts V and VI should have been consolidated.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, the warrantless search of the van was permissible under the automobile exception, and the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence.
-
The court held that testimony regarding prior drug use and distribution was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and knowledge, and under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) to contradict the defendant's material testimony.
-
The court held that a trial court's failure to personally advise jointly represented defendants of their right to separate counsel under Rule 44(c) does not mandate reversal unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the lawyer's performance. The court also held tha
-
The court held that appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation because they did not prove the percentage of Hispanics eligible for jury service in the general population.
-
The court held that the stop of the defendants' car was supported by probable cause, the search of the car and the bag was lawful due to consent and lack of privacy expectation, and the redacted statement did not violate confrontation rights.
-
The court held that while the procedure for determining a Fifth Amendment privilege claim in camera is not definitively decided, the trial court erred by sustaining the privilege too broadly, excluding potentially material testimony without sufficient justification.
-
924 F.2d 454·
2d Cir.·
1991-01-24
·cited 60×
The court held that the 'relevant conduct' determination was proper, but a downward departure based solely on disparity among co-defendants' sentences was impermissible. The court affirmed Joyner's appeal and remanded for resentencing on the Government's cross-appeal.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of possession and intent to distribute, consecutive sentences for the firearm offenses were permissible under double jeopardy, and the district court did not err in denying the motio
-
The court held that uncharged conduct, if sufficiently reliable and part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction, can be considered for sentencing purposes under the Guidelines, even if it occurred prior to the Guidelines' effective date or was
-
The court affirmed the defendants' sentences, holding that the sentencing guidelines are constitutional and were properly applied in these cases.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act and its promulgated Guidelines do not unconstitutionally deny due process by restricting judicial discretion or vesting excessive authority in the prosecutorial branch.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the trial judge's conduct, or the refusal to sever tax charges from drug charges.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute heroin (Counts One and Two), but reversed the conviction for possession of heroin found in a footlocker (Count Four) due to insufficient evidence of con
-
The court held that the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was not adequately supported by findings of fact regarding exigent circumstances, and that the possibility of the government creating the exigent circumstances required further factual determination.
-
The court held that the informant's consent to wiretaps was voluntary and that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury's finding of conspiracy, thus reversing an acquittal. The court also held that entrapment was not a jury question as the defendant was predisposed.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the production of the prosecutor's interview notes, refusing to compel disclosure of an informant's address, or in its jury instructions, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when private parties, acting on their own initiative and policy, open a suspicious package, and subsequent government searches do not exceed the scope of the private search. The court also held that a comp
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including drug courier profile factors, provided reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant's luggage for a canine sniff, and that the Sentencing Reform Act provisions requiring a government motion for downward adjustment a
-
-
The court held that the search was a valid border search justified by reasonable suspicion, and that the appellant was not denied her constitutional or statutory right to a speedy trial.
-
The double jeopardy rule announced in Grady v. Corbin does not bar the prosecution of the indictment in this case.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the search of the defendant's luggage was lawful, the admission of certain statements was harmless error, the evidence was sufficient for the money laundering convictions, the pistol was admissible, and the sentencing e
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, and even if it ripened into a Terry-seizure, it was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent consent to search was voluntary.
-
The court held that the joinder of counts was proper under Rule 8 and the denial of severance under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion. The admission of certain testimony was deemed harmless error.
-
-
Prior Miranda warnings are not required to validate consent searches, and statements obtained in violation of Miranda can be used to establish consent.
-
The court affirmed Turner's and Smith's sentences, but remanded Turner's for specific procedural compliance, vacated Beler's sentence, and remanded for resentencing due to factual errors.
-
The court held that the presence of firearms in a drug trafficker's apartment, where narcotics were stored and processed, constituted 'use' of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, even if the firearms were not fired or brandished at the scene of distribut
-
The court held that the chain of custody for the cocaine was sufficient for admissibility, and that constructive possession and carrying a firearm in a vehicle during a drug trafficking crime are valid grounds for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
-
-
The court held that the use of a trained canine to sniff the interior of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that delays of 7 to 13 days in sealing wiretap tapes were sufficiently explained by personnel and equipment shortages, and thus the tapes were admissible. The court also found that the wiretap authorization affidavits established probable cause.
-
The court held that a defendant's amnesia does not per se render them incompetent to stand trial, and that severance is not required when defenses are merely antagonistic rather than irreconcilable.
-
The court held that the negligent loss of a crucial tape recording by the government, without bad faith, did not require suppression of testimony or a new trial, especially when the defense was aware of the loss during the trial and the overall evidence of guilt was strong.
-
The court held that the two-level enhancement for playing a primary role in the offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1(c) was improperly applied because the offense of conviction involved only one participant.
-
The court held that the arrest and search of the defendant's vehicle were lawful, and the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) was constitutional.