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 should reverse the district court's sentence because it was not at or near the maximum term authorized by statute for a career offender.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pretrial motion for severance, and any prejudice from the co-defendant's attorney's summation did not rise to the level of plain error.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, finding sufficient evidence for conviction but issues with the original sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellants and that the trial court did not err in denying requests to poll the jury regarding mid-trial publicity.
-
The admission of evidence of uncharged drug offenses to prove the continuing series element of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charge was improper because the indictment failed to provide adequate notice of such proof, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs found in the house.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the defendant's claims regarding the admission of prior bad acts evidence, the completeness of the appellate record, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that while prior convictions were admissible, the evidence was insufficient to prove knowing possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause and that the trial judge's conduct did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, informant testimony, jury instructions, admission of statements, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
Assent to board and search a foreign flag vessel by a duly authorized official of that foreign government, communicated verbally or in writing to appropriate United States Department of State personnel, is adequate to meet the terms of 19 U.S.C.A. § 1401(j), supporting a convicti
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated and that the searches and seizures were supported by probable cause.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that the appellant was guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, at least as an aider and abetter.
-
The court held that the admission of inadmissible hearsay testimony, which was then emphasized in closing arguments, denied the defendant a fair trial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the Sierra Blanca checkpoint is the functional equivalent of the border and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
The court held that giving a "conscious avoidance" jury instruction was prejudicial error because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant deliberately avoided learning the truth.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, finding the two conspiracies charged were separate offenses.
-
The court held that the DEA agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of her bag, thus affirming the conviction.
-
-
The court held that a warrantless entry to 'secure' premises pending a search warrant is an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence obtained from such entry must be suppressed.
-
The court held that McGuire's severance and hearsay objections were properly denied, and Rivera's conviction for conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence, but his convictions for distribution and possession were not.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the defense counsel's request to question jurors about interim jury service between selection and trial.
-
The court held that a motorist's response to a signal to stop cannot retroactively justify the stop itself, and absent other indicia of illegal activity, proximity to the border alone does not create reasonable suspicion.
-
The court held that the failure to give advance limiting instructions on coconspirator statements was not plain error because the coconspirator later testified directly, and the independent evidence was sufficient. It also held that one defendant was improperly sentenced on two c
-
The court held that cross-examination based on unreliable hearsay and suspicion, even if drawing negative answers, is prejudicial when the defense is solely entrapment. It also held that increased sentences after withdrawal of guilty pleas, based on a fuller understanding of the
-
The court held that the defendant's pre-search declaration of contraband did not preclude her conviction for illegal importation, and that her trial counsel was not incompetent.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant's vehicle, and the stop did not occur at a functional equivalent of the border.
-
Convictions are affirmed, but sentences are vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly considered defendants' lack of repentance and refusal to confess as factors in sentencing, violating their Fifth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that a conspiracy conviction is valid even if a government informant is an essential participant, and that the 'knock and announce' rule's purpose requirement was excused as a useless gesture under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the search was valid and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of knowing possession by both appellants.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcases was unlawful because no exception to the warrant requirement, including exigent circumstances or the border search doctrine, applied.
-
The court held that conversations involving land-line telephones are wire communications under Title III, requiring a warrant, while radio-telephone conversations without land-line involvement are oral communications, requiring a reasonable expectation of privacy for suppression.
-
Airline searches conducted pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations are governmental searches subject to the Fourth Amendment, even if performed by airline personnel.
-
The court held that the stops and detentions were objectively reasonable, French's consent to search was voluntary and effective as to Foster, the admission of prior bad acts testimony was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to convict Caldwell, and Caldwell w
-
The court affirmed the drug trafficking convictions but vacated the sentences in part, remanding for re-sentencing due to errors in imposing supervised release terms for offenses committed before November 1, 1987.
-
The court held that evidence of a prior, uncharged drug transaction was admissible as 'inextricably intertwined' with the charged offenses, and that the government's breach of a debriefing agreement required resentencing by a different judge.
-
The court held that the cocaine was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine because the officer's initial intrusion was lawful, the discovery was inadvertent, and he had probable cause to believe the package contained contraband.
-
The court held that Baron's detention in a darkened bedroom constituted a de facto arrest supported by probable cause, and the subsequent black light test was a lawful search incident to that arrest. The court also found that any error in admitting testimony about marijuana-relat
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that any Brady/Giglio implications from undisclosed evidence did not undermine confidence in the out
-
The court held that a protective sweep of a residence following a lawful arrest is permissible if officers reasonably believe it is necessary for safety, and that coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible. The court also affirmed the d
-
The court held that the admission of authenticated and enhanced tape recordings and the use of transcripts as a jury aid were not an abuse of discretion, and that the denial of a post-trial hearing on alleged perjury was proper.
-
The court held that the searches of Milian's business premises and home were conducted pursuant to probable cause, exigent circumstances, or valid consent, and thus the suppression of evidence was erroneous.
-
The court held that the warrantless protective sweep of the defendant's curtilage was justified under exigent circumstances, and the marihuana found in plain view was lawfully seized. The court also affirmed the sentence, finding that the judge could consider evidence related to
-
The court held that a trial court has discretion to fashion remedies for untimely Jencks Act material production, beyond striking testimony or declaring a mistrial, if the government acted in good faith and prejudice is curable. The court also affirmed the admissibility of busine
-
The court held that the government's informant tactics did not violate due process and that the speedy trial rights of the defendants were not violated.
-
The court held that the defendants' severance claims were properly denied as their defenses were not mutually exclusive and the prosecutor's comments did not impermissibly use post-arrest silence.
-
The court held that the two convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 955a(a) and 955a(d) did not violate the double jeopardy clause because Congress intended them to define separate offenses.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the co-conspirator's statement and the cocaine found in the abandoned bag, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for mistrial or suppression, and the admission of a prior conviction was proper for limited purposes.