-
849 F.2d 910·
5th Cir.·
1988-07-01
The court held that the Border Patrol agents' actions of removing, compressing, and smelling the defendant's luggage did not constitute an unlawful search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
-
833 F.2d 523·
5th Cir.·
1987-11-23
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.
-
831 F.2d 819·
8th Cir.·
1987-10-27
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.
-
364 F.2d 297·
S.D. Fla.·
1986-08-13
The court held that the disappearance of the M/V San Juan, while unfortunate, did not prejudice the defendants' due process rights or impair their counsel's ability to represent them, thus denying the motion to dismiss.
-
766 F.2d 465·
11th Cir.·
1985-07-22
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.
-
599 F. Supp. 689·
S.D. Fla.·
1984-12-05
The court held that the statute 21 U.S.C. Sec. 955a(c) is constitutional and applies extraterritorially, and that the vessel was within the 'customs waters' of the United States due to a US-UK agreement.
-
742 F.2d 1279·
11th Cir.·
1984-09-27
A retrial following a mistrial declared with the defendant's consent, absent judicial provocation, is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
685 F.2d 1291·
11th Cir.·
1982-09-16
The court held that a juror's initial confusion during polling does not invalidate a guilty verdict if the juror ultimately and unequivocally affirms the verdict. The court also held that an instruction on a lesser included offense is not required when the evidence makes it incon
-
685 F.2d 328·
9th Cir.·
1982-08-25
The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to object to the admission of taped recordings, as his attorney made a tactical decision to allow their introduction.
-
675 F.2d 98·
5th Cir.·
1982-05-06
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.
-
674 F.2d 1323·
9th Cir.·
1982-04-22
The court held that the use of trained canines to detect contraband within personal luggage constitutes a Fourth Amendment intrusion requiring at least founded suspicion, not merely a reasonable belief.
-
669 F.2d 400·
6th Cir.·
1982-01-26
The court held that while the magistrate erred in admitting unrecorded oral testimony, the error was harmless because the affidavit alone established probable cause.
-
622 F.2d 415·
9th Cir.·
1980-02-19
The court held that evidence of prior misconduct was admissible to prove intent or knowledge.
-
611 F.2d 255·
8th Cir.·
1979-12-26
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.
-
603 F.2d 94·
9th Cir.·
1979-08-24
The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant is admissible, even if obtained after an allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest, if the evidence is not the fruit of that arrest.
-
584 F.2d 110·
5th Cir.·
1978-11-17
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for conviction on all three counts, and therefore affirmed the conviction.
-
573 F.2d 1137·
9th Cir.·
1978-04-26
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence, proper admission of prior bad acts testimony, no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance, and a lawful sentence based on post-conviction events.
-
568 F.2d 607·
8th Cir.·
1978-01-13
The court held that even if hearsay testimony was improperly admitted, it was not prejudicial given the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt on the remaining counts.
-
564 F.2d 306·
9th Cir.·
1977-11-08
The court held that the evidence was not obtained as a result of an illegal border detention and affirmed the conviction.
-
560 F.2d 197·
5th Cir.·
1977-09-28
The court held that there was substantial evidence to sustain the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
554 F.2d 1375·
5th Cir.·
1977-07-01
The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by ample evidence and that the trial court did not commit reversible error.
-
552 F.2d 1141·
5th Cir.·
1977-05-27
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy or any substantive counts related to cocaine distribution.
-
549 F.2d 340·
5th Cir.·
1977-03-23
The court held that the appellant's flight justified the subsequent search of his vehicle as an extended border search, and that the district court did not err in failing to consider sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.
-
534 F.2d 1321·
8th Cir.·
1976-05-13
The court held that the consent to search given by a third party with common authority over the premises was valid, even after the defendants' arrest.
-
507 F.2d 1029·
4th Cir.·
1974-12-27
The court held that the appellant's conviction for simple possession was valid, as it did not rely on the unconstitutional presumption, but the sentence was vacated due to the district court misapprehending the applicable sentencing range.
-
496 F.2d 887·
2d Cir.·
1974-04-26
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of drug offenses, despite his claim that the alleged acts occurred while he was incarcerated.
-
490 F.2d 447·
5th Cir.·
1974-03-06
The court held that the cumulative effect of two evidentiary errors, admitting testimony about a penitentiary release and offering marijuana, prejudiced the defendant and denied him a fair trial.
-
464 F.2d 570·
5th Cir.·
1972-07-28
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to warrant conviction and any error in admitting testimony was harmless.