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
-
A guilty plea waives a due process claim of outrageous government conduct if establishing the claim requires further proceedings beyond the face of the indictment or record at the time of the plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion by deferring a ruling on the motio
-
The dissenting judge believes that permitting magistrates to conduct jury voir dire in felony cases raises serious constitutional questions and should be prohibited by supervisory power.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court properly submitted the entrapment defense to the jury.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on continuances, probable cause, search warrants, sufficiency of evidence, hearsay, prosecutorial comments, severance, or witness retaliation charges.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, restrictions on cross-examination, contempt citation of counsel, or in refusing to grant a mistrial. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and sentencing did not violate the double jeopa
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions for appellants Quarterman, Prather, and McTeer, but reversed Jenkins' conviction due to insufficient evidence. The court also found no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof o
-
The court's opinion is concurred with, but the precise effect of joining lesser convictions with a greater conviction is unclear.
-
The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and separate convictions for manufacturing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute are permissible under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
-
The court held that prior conspiracy convictions for one ongoing smuggling operation do not bar prosecution for substantive offenses related to that operation, but they do bar prosecution for separate conspiracy charges arising from the same single conspiracy.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, illegal searches, or improper testimony, and sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, affirming the convictions.
-
-
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute, the prosecutor's closing argument was permissible, and the court did not err in denying severance or a James hearing.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence despite chain of custody questions, in allowing the government's case agent to remain in the courtroom, or in admitting expert testimony based on a manufacturer's sample, and that the defendant
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and that any errors in jury instructions were harmless.
-
The court held that the twenty-minute detention of the appellants' luggage, based on a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and did not require probable cause.
-
The court held that the Government did not waive its right to challenge the defendants' standing to contest the searches, and that only Hansen could challenge the search of room 241, only Means could challenge the search of room 242, and each defendant could challenge the search
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that searches and arrests were lawful.
-
The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause and was not overbroad, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the conspiracy convictions.
-
The court held that the stop and search of the truck were based on probable cause, the admission of a witness statement did not violate discovery agreements, severance was not required, the arrest and search of Chapman's motel room were lawful, and in-court identifications were r
-
The denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable collateral order. The RICO charges are not the same offense as prior drug convictions under the Blockburger test.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to submit defense exhibits to the jury, which were crucial for assessing witness credibility, thus reversing the conviction of one defendant. The court affirmed the conviction of the other defendant, finding su
-
The court held that allowing selected jurors to sit on similar cases between jury selection and trial renders peremptory challenges meaningless and requires reversal of convictions.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession, as the evidence presented a rational basis for the jury to acquit on the greater charge while convicting on the lesser.
-
The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the government's failure to disclose exculpatory information about an informant was deliberate or negligent, and to determine compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109 regarding the entry of the premi
-
-
The court held that the stop and search of the pickup truck were legal, affirming the convictions.
-
The court affirmed the jury convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that the Sentencing Guidelines were applied constitutionally.
-
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not newly discovered evidence under Rule 33 when the appellant was aware of the facts at the time of trial. The court also affirmed the sentencing decisions.
-
The court held that the referral to a secondary checkpoint was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the defendant's consent to search was not tainted.
-
The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony for background and expert testimony on intent to distribute was not plain error, as the defendant failed to properly preserve objections.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing because the district court's upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was unreasonable and lacked proper notice to the defendant.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's vague explanation for striking the sole black juror was insufficient to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination, and the district court erred in requiring a pattern of strikes to establish such a case.
-
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to an entrapment instruction if they demonstrate predisposition to commit the crime, and that consecutive sentences for possession with intent to distribute and distribution are permissible if there is independent evidence of prior
-
The court held that the opening of a fiberglass container constituted a search requiring a warrant, as the contents were not obvious and did not meet the single-purpose container exception.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by suppressing the defendants' post-arrest statements as a sanction for delayed discovery under Rule 16, as a continuance would have been a less severe and sufficient remedy.
-
The court held that the defendant's actions at the airport security checkpoint, including his attempt to withdraw consent to a search and subsequent flight, provided probable cause for his arrest and the seizure of his bag.
-
The court held that the narcotic agent's encounter with the defendant constituted an invalid seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2275 applies to any United States vessel engaged in commerce, including private vessels used for transporting contraband, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants of tampering with the vessel.
-
The court held that the initial stop and subsequent search of the vehicle were valid under both California and federal law, justifying the denial of the motion to suppress.
-
The court should not resolve sentencing departure issues on appeal, as this infringes on the district court's discretion.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court properly calculated the offense level based on the negotiated amount of cocaine and that the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's comment during rebuttal, while unartful, did not so infect the trial with unfairness as to violate due process, and that a special verdict on drug quantity was not required. The court also affirmed the application of Sentencing Guidelines and va
-
A warrantless entry into an apartment was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, even if law enforcement agents' actions contributed to the exigency, as long as those actions were lawful.
-
The court held that Franco was not entrapped and that Garcia's sentence properly included the half-kilo of cocaine based on his co-conspirator's actions.
-
The court held that the defendant consented to the encounter with officers, and the detention of his bag was justified by reasonable suspicion. However, the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop was based on reasonable suspicion and that considering the defendant's family wealth in determining a fine was permissible.
-
The court held that while the prosecutor's rebuttal argument was improper, it was not prejudicial enough to deny the defendants a fair trial, and that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or sentencing enhancements.