56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,495 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest DiNapoli and Papa and to search the suitcase, and therefore the contents were admissible.
-
A RICO conspiracy indictment adequately alleges an essential element when it charges defendants with willfully and knowingly conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c) and describes the nature of the racketeering activities composing the alleged pattern. The definition of 'enter
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of an unregistered machine gun, and using a machine gun during a drug trafficking offense, and that possession with intent to distribute qualifi
-
-
The court held that the pretrial restraint of assets under 21 U.S.C. § 853, which includes funds for attorneys' fees, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, as the statute does not exempt attorneys' fees and the threat of forfeiture impacts the ability t
-
The court held that marijuana offenses can be the subject of a RICO charge and that wiretap applications, even if amended, are valid if probable cause exists independently of challenged information.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, limiting cross-examination, or in its handling of other issues raised by the defendants.
-
The court held that the warrantless entry and search of the Cohen property were justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that prosecutorial misconduct and discovery violations did not prejudice the appellants to the extent requiring a mistrial.
-
528 So. 2d 910·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1988-05-27
·cited 182×
Bruce Gordon was convicted of both sale of cocaine and possession with intent to sell the same single rock of cocaine based on a single transaction. The court reversed, holding that these crimes constitute a single offense under double jeopardy principles and cannot support multi
-
BATF agents are protected under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, and knowledge of the victim's federal status is not an element of the assault crime under 18 U.S.C. § 111.
-
The court held that the trial court's actions regarding judicial comments, admission of 'other crimes' evidence, limitations on cross-examination, and use of transcripts did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court held that the admission of grand jury testimony under Fed.R.Ev. 804(b)(5) was proper because the declarant was unavailable due to the defendant's actions, and the defendant waived his confrontation rights by causing the unavailability. The court also found the testimony
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting agent opinion testimony regarding lookout activity, handwriting expert testimony, or coconspirator hearsay statements, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana and attempted importation, and that various procedural challenges raised by the appellants were without merit.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and use of a firearm to commit a felony.
-
The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable final order, and the burden of persuasion shifts to the government once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of former jeopardy.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion for election of counts because the conspiracy charges for cocaine and heroin were multiplicious. The court also found that the joinder of alienage counts with drug counts was proper and that the judge's comments d
-
A violation of a treaty does not divest a court of jurisdiction over defendants arrested aboard a foreign vessel seized beyond the twelve-mile limit.
-
The court held that the search of the boat and seizure of the navigational chart were constitutional under the community caretaking and exigent circumstances doctrines, and that the appellant's detention and subsequent arrest were justified by probable cause.
-
Entry into a third party's home to execute an arrest warrant is permissible without a search warrant if officers reasonably believe the suspect is present.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in excusing a potential entrapment witness without a proper Fifth Amendment inquiry and in giving an erroneous jury instruction on entrapment, requiring a new trial for Sutherlin. The court affirmed Gomez-Rojas' conviction, finding suffic
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting coconspirator statements under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and that the procedures used to determine admissibility did not violate defendants' rights.
-
The court held that the district court erred by not affording the defendant an opportunity to dispute the factual basis for an upward departure based on cocaine purity.
-
The court held that Customs officers have statutory authority to board vessels sighted in customs waters for document checks, and that the plain view doctrine and exigent circumstances justified the subsequent warrantless search. The court also reversed convictions for importatio
-
The court held that a defendant must satisfactorily establish concrete facts for comparison to prove pretext in a Batson claim.
-
The court held that the police conduct did not violate due process or supervisory power, the admission of a confession was harmless error, jury instructions were adequate, the jury was not coerced, the indictment contained no prejudicial surplusage, and the evidence was sufficien
-
The court held that most of the defendant's claims were procedurally defaulted and not reviewable as plain error, and the remaining evidentiary rulings were either properly admitted or not preserved for appeal.
-
The court affirmed convictions for Vasquez, Sanchez, and the Mesas, but vacated Amparo Medina's conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
-
The court affirmed most convictions but vacated one, finding no violations of speedy trial, self-representation, opening statement, co-conspirator statement admissibility, sufficiency of evidence, forfeiture, double jeopardy, or jury communication rights.
-
The court affirmed convictions, finding no merit in challenges to severance, Brady violations, hearsay admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence.
-
The court held that the entry by an undercover agent invited into a home for a drug transaction did not require announcement under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy.
-
A district court must adequately articulate the grounds for an upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines, perform the mandatory § 4A1.3 analysis, and provide defense counsel proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
-
The court held that the superseding indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and the trial court did not err in admitting testimony or denying severance, thus affirming the convictions.
-
Convictions for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are reversed because drug trafficking is not a 'crime of violence' as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16. Carlos Cruz's conspiracy conviction merges with his continuing criminal enterprise conviction
-
The court held that the dismissal of a conspiracy count does not automatically require reversal of convictions on substantive counts or a continuing criminal enterprise count, and that the denial of a severance was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the government's decision to seek a superseding indictment with a continuing criminal enterprise charge was not vindictive, and that the defendant received a fair trial despite pretrial publicity because an impartial jury was impaneled.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, and that prejudicial remarks by government witnesses were cured by the trial court's instructions, thus denying a fair trial was not reversible e
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Littrell's conspiracy conviction and convictions for possession and distribution, but affirmed Davi's convictions.
-
The dissenting judge would hold that the police encounter constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure and that the officers lacked sufficient specific and articulable facts to justify the seizure, rendering any subsequent search illegal.
-
The court held that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to prove possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, reversing the conviction.
-
The en banc court affirmed the district court's denial of the motions to suppress, holding that the warrantless search of the house, garage, and station wagon was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, the scope of the conspiracy, and procedural matters.
-
The court affirmed the sentences, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to reduce White's offense level for acceptance of responsibility, properly enhanced Jackson's offense level for firearm possession, and correctly denied Jackson's request for a minor partici
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of scales and firearms was not unfairly prejudicial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and attempted distribution.
-
The court held that the customs officials had reasonable suspicion to conduct an exterior body surface search of the appellant, which led to the discovery of contraband.
-
The court held that the wiretap evidence was properly admitted because the necessity requirement was met, authorization was proper, and minimization efforts were reasonable. The court also held that the automobile stop was based on probable cause derived from the collective knowl
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's conviction and that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. sec. 841(b)(1) are constitutional.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of drug and firearms counts was proper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance or continuance motions.
-
The court held that a district court's departure from Sentencing Guidelines requires specific findings of circumstances not adequately considered by the Commission, and that the Drug Quantity Table's equivalency of 100 grams per marijuana plant is invalid as applied when the stat
-
A defendant seeking a mitigating factor at sentencing bears the burden of proving its applicability by a preponderance of the evidence, and co-conspirator statements made after arrest are admissible if in furtherance of the conspiracy.