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 affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no plain error in the reasonable doubt instruction and that the entrapment and Sixth Amendment instructions were adequate.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute, and that the jury instructions were proper.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, but reversed the conviction for unlawfully carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony due to insu
-
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that evidence of real estate transactions was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the refusal of a multiple conspiracy instruction was proper, and the designation as a Special Dan
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding entrapment, the denial of a co-defendant's entrapment defense, the instruction on undercover agents, the submission of extrinsic evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that the retention of the appellant's ticket and driver's license by the officers constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, rendering the subsequent consent to search involuntary and the evidence inadmissible.
-
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed a substantive count of the indictment on double jeopardy grounds because the government failed to clearly limit its use of evidence in a prior prosecution.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, and that the indictment was not fundamentally defective.
-
The stop of the defendant and his subsequent arrest were reasonable and based upon probable cause.
-
The court held that while the trial judge erred in excluding testimony regarding a key witness's prior inconsistent statements and motives, this error was harmless. The court also found the prosecutor's improper question about an unconvicted offense to be harmless error.
-
The Sixth Amendment forbids excluding otherwise admissible evidence solely as a sanction to enforce discovery rules against criminal defendants, and the trial court abused its discretion by excluding crucial character witnesses for the defense.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the marijuana species defense was foreclosed by precedent, the warrantless search of the briefcase was a lawful border search, and the jury selection process did not violate constitutional or statutory requirements.
-
The court held that the repeated association of vehicles during a drug transaction, the late hour, rural setting, and the defendant's attempted flight provided sufficient probable cause for his arrest, and the contraband found in plain view was lawfully seized.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
-
The court held that the admission of prior convictions and a marihuana-smoking incident, along with the denial of a continuance for a material witness, constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, as the possibility of enhanced punishment for future offenses is a collateral consequence not requiring explicit advisement under Rule 11.
-
The court held that the arrest and subsequent search were valid, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
-
The court held that the premature discharge of the jury before a verdict on the second count, due to the judge's desire to catch a flight and a crowded docket, violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy.
-
The convictions for drug offenses and firearm charges are affirmed, but the sentences for Rodriguez and Vega are vacated due to plain error in the sentencing proceedings.
-
The court held that the arrests were supported by probable cause based on a combination of an informer's tip and independent police investigation and observation, but the evidence was insufficient to convict Lopez-Ortiz.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior similar incident to show knowledge and intent, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the airline employee's initial search of the bag was not a governmental search subject to the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent warrantless search by a federal agent was justified by exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that evidence seized under a warrant, though later invalidated for lack of particularity, was admissible under the Leon exception due to the officers' reasonable reliance on the warrant. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for usin
-
The court held that a wife's apparent authority to consent to a search of a room does not extend to closed containers within that room, and that a defendant's waiver of jury trial, while procedurally deficient, was knowing and intelligent and did not affect substantial rights.
-
Anticipatory search warrants are not unconstitutional per se and can be valid if supported by probable cause that contraband will be present when the warrant is executed, and if their execution conditions are clear and met.
-
The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and his luggage, and that the drug courier profile testimony was relevant to the jury's determination of guilt and chain of custody.
-
The court held that searches at the Atlanta airport were conducted at the functional equivalent of the border and thus required no reasonable suspicion, and that statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible under the co-conspirator exceptio
-
The court held that the denial of the defendant's motions to suppress was proper, affirming the conviction. The court found no constitutional violations in the statute, the consent search, the Franks hearing, or the Rule 41 violation.
-
The court held that the totality of circumstances, including an informant's tip and corroborating surveillance, established probable cause for the warrantless search of the vehicle, and that post-arrest statements were admissible.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of both appellants, finding no merit in their challenges to the Fourth Amendment issues, sufficiency of evidence, or trial conduct.
-
The district judge erred in denying defendants' motion to suppress evidence without consulting the transcript of the magistrate's hearing, especially when rejecting the magistrate's recommendation.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that while some evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial remarks were questionable, they constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and the sentencing departure was justified.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful, the delay in indictment did not violate constitutional rights, and the double jeopardy claim was not supported by evidence.
-
The court held that denying a defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on their silence during a presentence interview does not violate the Fifth Amendment, and that disparate sentences between co-defendants are permissible if they are not similarly situated.
-
A district court cannot impose a sentence below the statutory minimum established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 by relying on mitigating circumstances, even if those circumstances would justify a sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines minimum.
-
The court held that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' enhancement for firearm possession during a drug offense is constitutional as applied, and that sufficient evidence supported the enhancement and the jury instructions were adequate.
-
The court held that recorded conversations between co-conspirators were admissible as non-hearsay, drug paraphernalia was relevant to the conspiracy charge, and the search of an arrestee's wallet was a valid search incident to arrest.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior conviction, blank Social Security cards, and tax return, nor was the evidence insufficient for conviction.
-
The court clarified its prior opinion, correcting misleading language regarding double jeopardy vacaturs for certain counts of conspiracy to import and possess.
-
The court held that the admission of evidence concerning traces of cocaine in the defendant's bag was proper impeachment, the search under the mattress was within the scope of consent, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the enhanced sentencing provisions w
-
The court held that the CCE statute does not require the jury to unanimously agree on the identities of the five subordinates, and that the indictment for conspiracy to impede the IRS was sufficiently specific.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in amending the jury verdict ex parte, admitting the tax expert's testimony, admitting the hearsay document as a prior consistent statement, or denying the motion to suppress based on Dotson's reasonable expectation of privacy, t
-
The court held that the district court should have excluded the out-of-court statements unless the government granted use immunity to the declarant, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper.
-
The court held that the quantity of marijuana is an essential element of an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(6) and must be alleged in the indictment to support a sentence under that provision.
-
The court held that the government's failure to provide discovery of a defendant's wallet contents violated Rule 16, and this violation was not harmless error, requiring reversal of that defendant's conviction.
-
The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of Antonio Reyes Espinoza for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting the substantive offense.
-
The court held that the search warrant was valid, probable cause existed for the arrest, and the denial of the motion to disclose informants' identities was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's improper comments on the defendants' failure to testify did not warrant a new trial given the strong evidence, the curative instruction, and the isolated nature of the misconduct. The court also rejected other grounds for appeal.