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 sufficient to sustain the convictions for importing and possessing marihuana with intent to distribute, and that the appellants' navigational course did not invalidate the importation charge.
-
The court held that an extremely congested docket, if not caused by neglect, can constitute 'exceptional circumstances' justifying a delay beyond the time limits set by a Rule 50(b) speedy trial plan.
-
The court held that secret proceedings from which defendants and their counsel were excluded, and the government's failure to disclose a plea agreement with a key witness, resulted in substantial prejudice and violated due process, requiring a new trial.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the jury instructions on reasonable doubt, while not ideal, did not constitute reversible error, and the denial of the motion for a bill of particulars and a new trial were not abuses of discretion.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was lawful due to probable cause, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
-
The court held that a canine sniff of a vehicle's exterior, when the vehicle is lawfully impounded, does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The impoundment itself was a reasonable exercise of the community caretaking function.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the jury verdicts and sentences were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the district court did not err in its rulings on plea agreements, evidence sufficiency, severance, sequestration, or sentencing.
-
The court held that the defendant's "CIA intelligence gathering" defense was invalid as a matter of law and that the defendant failed to properly raise a separate defense of lacking specific intent to distribute cocaine at the trial level.
-
The court held that the initial encounter with the defendant was consensual, and the subsequent investigative stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, making the subsequent admissions and arrest lawful.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's comment was not an improper comment on the defendant's silence, the jury instructions were adequate, and the admission of the fuel log was not barred by Rule 11(e)(6).
-
The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in finding plain error and in distinguishing between defendants regarding the harmlessness of the error.
-
The concurring judge believes the appellees had a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus standing to challenge the search.
-
The court held that the information in the wiretap affidavit was not stale, the amended wiretap order was properly obtained, and the Florida Attorney General had the authority to authorize the wiretap application.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Evasio Garcia of conspiracy charges, reversing his conviction. The court affirmed the convictions of the other appellants, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error regarding their other claims.
-
The court held that appellants' challenges to jury instructions and the denial of a hearing on standing were waived or barred by prior rulings, and that the government's failure to produce psychiatric reports did not violate Brady or the Sixth Amendment.
-
The court held that the initial stop and inquiry of a vessel on inland waters by Customs officers, without reasonable suspicion, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and subsequent boarding and search were justified.
-
The court held that evidence seized during a drug transaction at a defendant's home was admissible under consent search doctrine, searches of wallets incident to arrest were valid, the jury instructions on entrapment were sufficient, and evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of d
-
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to cross-examine an affiant before a search warrant is issued unless they allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth, and that the odor of marijuana is not material evidence to a conviction for possession with i
-
The court should have suppressed evidence obtained via a search warrant based on a knowingly false affidavit, reversing the conviction.
-
The court held that the Coast Guard's detention of the vessel was justified based on observed safety hazards and the need to check registration, and that probable cause for the search arose from the detected odor of marihuana.
-
-
Eight defendants were convicted of marijuana importation, conspiracy, and possession with intent to distribute following an unsuccessful attempt to offload approximately 18,000 pounds of marijuana from a tugboat (the Turtola) into fast boats in the Gulf of Mexico. The appellants
-
A felon juror's concealed status, discovered after a jury trial, requires reversal and a new trial because the juror's disqualification is not based on bias and cannot be adequately assessed post-trial.
-
The dissenting judge argues that a district court cannot depart downward from sentencing guidelines based on the defendants' socioeconomic status or perceived disparities in plea agreements.
-
The court concurred that the impoundment was unreasonable due to investigatory pretext, despite the reasonableness of the impoundment itself under the circumstances.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the admission of $34,000 found in a co-conspirator's apartment was not plain error. The court also affirmed the denial of a sentence redu
-
The court affirmed the sentence and plea, finding the evidence sufficient to establish the relevant drug quantity for sentencing, the district court's procedural errors under Rule 32 did not warrant resentencing, and the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was
-
The court held that the affidavit for the search warrant established probable cause, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and firearm use, and the district court did not err in denying severance or refusing jury instructi
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that any discovery violations were harmless and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, with the substantive possession conviction affirmed under the Pinkerton doctrine.
-
The court held that questions asked by an unknown caller are not hearsay because they do not assert anything, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict Lewis of conspiracy.
-
The court held that the type of firearm and whether it was loaded are not grounds for sentencing departure under the applicable guideline, as these factors are either explicitly rejected or already accounted for.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences for drug trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy offenses, finding no errors in search and seizure, courtroom security, severance, excluded evidence, closing arguments, or sentencing guideline applications.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Lieutenant Dailey's expert testimony regarding countersurveillance and document interpretation, nor in rereading trial testimony to the jury.
-
The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) were without merit, and affirmed the district court's imposition of the minimum sentence.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, finding probable cause for the arrest and lawful seizure of the bag, and that jury instructions and Speedy Trial Act calculations were proper.
-
While not strictly forbidden, judges are generally advised against defining reasonable doubt as attempts often create more confusion than clarity.
-
The government's violation of the plea agreement by introducing evidence of cocaine found in the house, contrary to the agreement's stipulation, entitles the defendant to specific performance of the agreement, requiring resentencing.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating the Travel Act must be reversed due to insufficient evidence of a 'business enterprise,' but affirmed his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
-
The court held that the defendant was not denied a fair trial by the mid-trial sentencing of a co-conspirator, nor were tape recordings improperly admitted or used.
-
The court affirmed the captain's convictions, finding no double jeopardy, but reversed the crew members' convictions due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court affirmed all convictions, holding that wiretap warrants were properly issued, the government was not required to prove the specific isomer of cocaine involved before 1984, post-arrest statements were properly excluded, and consent to search was voluntary.
-
A warrantless arrest in a hotel room for a misdemeanor is permissible under state law if probable cause exists for a closely related offense, and Fourth Amendment protections do not apply if the defendant has been justifiably ejected and lost a reasonable expectation of privacy.
-
The court held that the Navy's involvement in the drug interdiction did not require dismissal of the indictment or suppression of evidence, and the destruction of the vessel did not warrant suppression of secondary evidence.
-
The court remanded the Speedy Trial Act claims for Bergouignan and Godoy to the district court for a determination of excludable days, while affirming Simone's convictions.
-
The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because he was not seized when asked to accompany an agent and because he abandoned his bag, forfeiting any privacy interest.
-
The court held that the airport search and seizure of cocaine were constitutional, based on reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop and voluntary consent to search.
-
-
The court held that the extended border search was valid and the appellant's consent to the x-ray search was voluntary, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
A district court's failure to address a timely asserted conflict of interest by counsel, including refusing to allow withdrawal or hold required hearings, violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.