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 defendant had standing to challenge the search of a borrowed car and that the initial traffic stop was a pretext for an illegal search, rendering the subsequent consent invalid.
-
The court held that the indictment was not defective, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting transcripts with speaker identities, or admitting certain conversations, and the jury instructions were proper.
-
A defendant waives the entrapment defense by pleading guilty, and a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) does not preserve the entrapment issue for appeal. Furthermore, the government's conduct in this case did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to bar prosecution.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine, but the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful. The conviction is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on simple possession.
-
The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and one possession count, but vacated convictions for another possession count due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that there was probable cause for the initial search of the vehicle and that the trial judge properly denied the motion for recusal.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in managing the trial or in jury instructions, but that consecutive sentences for Molden Atkinson were improper for a single act.
-
823 F.2d 346·
9th Cir.·
1987-07-29
·cited 55×
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics and possession with intent to distribute narcotics.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that warrantless entry into a hotel room was justified by exigent circumstances, seizure of suitcases was permissible under plain view, and the automobile exception allowed warrantless search of a vehicle.
-
The court held that neither appellant had a legitimate expectation of privacy to contest the search, and that the search was valid due to consent and subsequent warrants; however, the evidence was insufficient to convict Crosby.
-
627 F.2d 293·
D.C. Cir.·
1980-03-04
·cited 55×
The court held that while errors occurred, they did not contribute to the conviction, except for appellant Watson.
-
The court held that the jury instruction regarding inferring knowledge from driving was erroneous and prejudicial, requiring a new trial for Martinez. For Sidle, the evidence for the residue quantity was insufficient, and a prosecutor's improper argument required a new trial on t
-
The appellate court affirmed the validity of an antenuptial agreement but reversed the trial court's modification of its terms regarding alimony and its award of the marital home.
-
The court held that the search warrant was valid under the good faith exception and the evidence was sufficient for the firearm conviction, but reversed the sentencing enhancement based on uncharged drug quantities due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson, and the evidence was sufficient to convict him of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
-
Mere possession of a firearm is insufficient for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), but the totality of circumstances here, including the gun's location in the area of drug transactions, provided a sufficient nexus to infer intent to use.
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle was a lawful inventory search, joinder and severance were proper, jury instructions were appropriate, evidence was admissible, and the wiretap was lawful.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched luggage, and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for possession and conspiracy, probable cause for arrests and searches, and no prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that a defendant waives a juror misconduct claim by failing to report it before the verdict, and that other claims lacked merit or sufficient proof.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of all appellants, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings regarding guilty pleas, evidentiary decisions, or the admission of evidence.
-
The court affirmed convictions, finding no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or the handling of juror contact, except for a procedural issue regarding Scaduto's lesser-included offenses.
-
The court held that the surveillance officers had probable cause to arrest Piedrahita, that Albeiro's statement was admissible co-conspirator hearsay, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, and that Ginsberg's conviction for possession was supported by evidence of ai
-
The court held that the Miranda warnings given to the defendant were defective because they failed to inform him of his right to have counsel present during questioning, and the admission of his post-arrest statements was not harmless error.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied motions to suppress evidence seized during the arrest and post-arrest statements, and that the defendant's post-arrest statements to an Assistant U.S. Attorney, though obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona, constituted
-
The court held that the evidence was admissible, the trial was timely under the Speedy Trial Act, and the jury instructions were proper, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the initial police encounter with the defendant constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence obtained was tainted by this unlawful seizure.
-
The court held that a separate conviction for possession with intent to distribute is impermissible when the possession is an essential element of the distribution offense charged and proven.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance based on a co-defendant's conditional offer to provide exculpatory testimony.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence from a dismissed count without a cautionary instruction, nor in refusing to disclose the informant's identity or appoint an expert, and that the nondisclosure of certain informant statements was not prejudicial
-
The court held that the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception and that the defendant failed to prove a violation of the knock and announce statute.
-
The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding the legality of her arrest, the officers' entry into her motel room, the sufficiency of the search warrant, and the seizure of the ledger were without merit.
-
The court affirmed the conviction because probable cause existed to search the vehicle, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court improperly departed from the sentencing guidelines.
-
The court held that the seizure of the suspect's ticket constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent detention and search were justified by probable cause arising from a suspicious bulge.
-
The court held that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the Bueno-type issue, where the defendant claims the government agent supplied the contraband.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying defendants' motions to identify, disclose the whereabouts of, or produce the government informant, as the informant's testimony was not shown to be essential to a fair determination of the issues.
-
The exclusionary rule should apply to sentencing, as allowing illegally seized evidence would significantly undermine the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant waived his motion for acquittal by failing to renew it, that the sentencing was proper, that the judge's questioning did not constitute plain error, and that the voir dire was adequate.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a hearing to contest the pre-sentence report and in imposing the maximum sentence, as the defendant had an opportunity to challenge the information and the sentence was within statutory limits and proportionate to the
-
The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. The admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if potentially erroneous, was harmless error.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, the government's conduct was not outrageous, and inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal of a conviction.
-
797 F.2d 90·
2d Cir.·
1986-07-31
·cited 52×
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of cash and food stamps, expert testimony on food stamp use, co-conspirator statements, and cocaine vials, as these evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion and did not warrant reversal.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Bedoya's conspiracy conviction, reversing both appellants' conspiracy convictions. The court affirmed Valencia's conviction on the substantive count.
-
The court held that the majority erred in upholding Mansfield's conviction, as the evidence did not establish probable cause for his arrest.
-
The court held that convictions must be reversed if jurors were prejudiced by knowledge of a defendant's prior trial, and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on the right to remain silent. An investigatory stop is permissible even if it briefly restricts a suspect's fr
-
The court held that a co-defendant's attorney's comments about another co-defendant's silence, if not intended to comment on that silence, do not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court also held that mere presence or knowledge of illegal activity is insufficient to prove particip
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Jackson's prior manslaughter conviction for impeachment, nor in admitting evidence of his voluntary return of money, and that the trial judge did not exhibit bias.
-
The court held that the admission of flight evidence, hearsay testimony, and the restriction of cross-examination were not reversible errors, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Riggins' conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute.