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 evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to import, importation, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the seizure of the vehicle containing marijuana was unlawful, requiring suppression of that evidence.
-
Sufficient evidence existed to establish intent to distribute cocaine, even if the pure quantity was less than 10 grams, when considering the unusual amount in a prison context, potential resale value, and the defendant's lack of addiction to cocaine.
-
The court held that the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedures, affirming their convictions.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was legal because the seizing officer had probable cause, and the car's mobility created exigent circumstances.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial, including issues related to a defendant's absence, jury instructions, cross-examination restrictions, and the destruction of evidence.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol agents were legally justified in stopping the appellants' vehicles based on a 'founded suspicion'.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant at the border was lawful, and her convictions for importing and possessing cocaine are affirmed.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the vehicle 55 miles inland was unlawful because the record lacked sufficient facts to establish reasonable suspicion that the vehicle had crossed the border or contained contraband.
-
The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and use of a communication facility, vacated one firearm conviction due to improper dual predicate offenses, and affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct and the refusal of an entrapment instru
-
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) provides an independent basis for criminal liability and does not require an underlying drug-trafficking conviction as a predicate for punishment.
-
The court held that the officers' actions in stopping and searching Laing were reasonable under the circumstances, and that the jury's inconsistent verdicts did not invalidate Martin's conviction.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reopen evidence to allow the defendant to testify.
-
The court held that the district court erred in not dismissing Count V against David and Hood due to double jeopardy, and that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard under the Jencks Act, requiring remand for further proceedings.
-
-
The court held that a statement made in response to an express, accusatory question during a custodial interrogation is inadmissible if Miranda warnings were not given, regardless of whether the response was directly responsive to the question.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence, refusing a specific jury instruction, denying a motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, or excluding juror declarations regarding deliberations.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of all three appellants, finding no reversible error in the denial of motions to suppress, dismissals under the Speedy Trial Act, sufficiency of evidence, or Brady Act claims.
-
The court held that the jury instruction did not constitute plain error, that multiple sentences for simultaneous possession of different drugs are authorized by Congress, but that the sentence imposed for marijuana possession exceeded statutory limits.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, the prosecutor's comments, or the sufficiency of the evidence.
-
The court held that the odor of marijuana provides probable cause for a vehicle search, but that summaries of undisclosed presentence report information must be sufficiently specific to allow defendants to rebut potentially erroneous material.
-
The court held that the installation and use of a transponder did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that probable cause existed for the search of a vehicle containing marijuana. A confession was deemed voluntary.
-
The court held that vicarious liability under Pinkerton v. United States is applicable to narcotics distribution conspiracies and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a juvenile adjudication for impeachment purposes.
-
The court held that testimony regarding conversations in an attorney's office was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because a non-client was present and the conversations concerned plans to commit perjury. The court also held that excluding resident aliens from feder
-
The court held that the pre-boarding screening program, including the use of a magnetometer and the FAA Profile, was constitutional and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The search of the defendant's luggage was justified by exceptional circumstances.
-
The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were properly admitted, evidence of prior criminal conduct was admissible, the jury instructions were appropriate, and the sentence for possession of cocaine base was constitutional.
-
The court held that defendants' sentences were improperly enhanced based on crack cocaine amounts not charged in the indictment or proven at trial.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress wiretap evidence, finding probable cause, necessity of surveillance, and proper duration. It also found sufficient evidence for convictions, denied severance, and deemed expert testimony admissio
-
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) is a general intent crime and the phrase "in relation to" does not add a substantive element requiring specific intent to use the firearm. The evidence of carrying a pistol to protect drug sale proceeds is sufficient to support a convicti
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's purse was justified by exigent circumstances, as officers had probable cause to believe she was fleeing with evidence.
-
The court held that the district court's finding that the defendant was not a minor participant was not clearly erroneous, and thus no reduction in offense level was warranted.
-
The court held that while a defendant's voluntary drug ingestion may not automatically excuse absence, the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding without sufficient inquiry into the circumstances of the defendant's absence and by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the admission of prior conviction evidence and subsequent references did not constitute plain error, the destruction of evidence was in good faith, and the sentencing enhancement was proper.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the car and apartment, and that the scope of cross-examination and admission of fingerprint evidence were proper. The court also affirmed the conviction based on a Pinkerton
-
The court held that co-conspirator statements were admissible and that Zavala lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute as applied to others.
-
The court held that while the limitation on cross-examination of the government's witness was proper, the exclusion of the defense witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion and substantially prejudicial.
-
The court held that the seizure of the defendant's shoulderbag was justified by reasonable suspicion, and thus the evidence found within it was admissible.
-
Pre-indictment delay did not violate due process as the defendant failed to show actual prejudice, and post-indictment delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act due to the defendant's evasion and procedural delays.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in jury instructions, search and seizure, or prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that a district court errs by accepting conceded Brady material and failing to disclose it or determine its discoverability. The prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland cannot be shifted to the court.
-
The court held that even if the warrantless arrest and seizure were unlawful, the error was harmless because sufficient independent evidence supported the conviction.
-
The court held that the roving border patrol agents lacked sufficient cause to justify the warrantless stop of the defendant's automobile, and the subsequent search was also illegal, rendering the conviction invalid.
-
The court held that warrantless arrests and searches within a third party's home were justified by exigent circumstances, and that the indictments sufficiently stated the operative time periods for the alleged conspiracies.
-
The court held that the admission of computer-generated information regarding a defendant's prior record and suspected drug smuggling activities constituted hearsay and improper use of prior offenses, requiring reversal of his conviction. However, the court found sufficient evide
-
The court held that the second stop of the defendant constituted an illegal arrest because it was not supported by probable cause and was a successive stop based on the same information. The defendant's subsequent disclaimer of luggage was tainted by this illegal arrest.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the defendant's residence, and the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop and subsequent search were lawful, and the admission of evidence of prior acts and the prosecutor's comments did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights was not clearly erroneous, and thus, the confession was admissible.
-
The court held that the appellant's arguments regarding the Speedy Trial Act, Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, entrapment, and unlawful firearm possession lacked merit.
-
The court held that the government can use a criminal defendant's statements made in a pre-trial bail hearing to prove guilt at trial, contrary to established precedent.
-
The court held that the federal prosecution did not violate the Petite policy and that the defendants' other challenges to their convictions lacked merit.