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 indictment was insufficient because it lacked the specificity required to link the grand jury's concerns to the evidence presented at trial.
-
The court held that the admission of a customer book was erroneous and insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, and that the defendant was entitled to a lesser-included offense charge for simple possession.
-
The Court held that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Ross, which expanded the scope of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, applies retroactively to cases pending on appeal. Therefore, evidence seized from briefcases found in a v
-
The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence seized from the vessel, admitted co-conspirator statements, denied severance motions, admitted extrinsic evidence, allowed cross-examination on prior drug smuggling, and gave a proper supplemental
-
The court held that the magistrate had probable cause to authorize the installation of an electronic tracking device (beeper) in the aircraft, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
-
The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, the trial court properly denied a motion to reopen the suppression hearing due to a lack of proof of misstatement, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance
-
The court held that the defendant's actions in facilitating a drug transaction, including introducing the parties, arranging the meeting, and quoting prices, were sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting, even without a direct financial stake.
-
The court held that any errors regarding extraneous offenses or prosecutorial misconduct were harmless due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence supporting the conviction.
-
The court held that neither defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the aircraft sufficient to challenge the installation and monitoring of the beeper, as they failed to establish ownership, proprietary rights, or legitimate possession of the plane.
-
The court held that the appellant's consent to accompany the agent to an office was voluntary, the subsequent arrest for providing false identification was lawful, and the search incident to that arrest was permissible, leading to the affirmance of his conviction.
-
The court held that the classification of cocaine as a Schedule II narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act is constitutional, and the Attorney General's decision not to reclassify it was not irrational or unreasonable.
-
The court held that recording conversations by a participant is constitutional and that the procedural issues raised by the defendant lacked merit.
-
The court held that the notice of appeal was timely, and that while some constitutional claims are not barred by a guilty plea, the defendant's specific claims of double jeopardy, prosecution under an unconstitutional statute, unconstitutional plea bargaining, and manifest injust
-
The court held that evidence seized from a partially open briefcase in a car was admissible under the plain view doctrine, and the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for severance, suppressing evidence, or refusing lesser-included offense instructions, affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the trial court properly refused a jury instruction on "fundamental fairness" regarding government conduct in entrapment cases, and that the defendant's conviction was not unconstitutional due to alleged government misconduct.
-
The court held that the defendants failed to establish that the conspiracy charged in the Texas indictment was the same as the one charged in the Oklahoma indictment, thus the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the prosecution.
-
A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and therefore does not trigger the Agreement's dismissal provisions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.
-
The court held that prior service on similar cases by jurors does not create implied bias, and evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the search of the boat in Mission Bay was a lawful border search because the bay was a functional equivalent of the border and the boat had recently traveled in foreign waters.
-
The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony under the co-conspirator exception was improper due to insufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the Almeida-Sanchez decision articulated a new constitutional rule, which should be applied prospectively, not retroactively.
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress and the motion for mistrial were proper, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as applied to marijuana, is constitutional, and its classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance is not irrational or arbitrary.
-
The court held that the defendant's double jeopardy claim failed because jeopardy had not attached in the state prosecution and the federal prosecution was not a sham. The court also rejected the vindictive prosecution claim, finding no actual or presumed vindictiveness.
-
Statements made by appellants regarding their citizenship prior to Miranda warnings were admissible because the inquiry was part of an identification procedure permitted as an exception to Miranda, necessitated by the circumstances, and would have been discovered eventually.
-
The court held that the encounter between the DEA agents and the defendant was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the identification of the cocaine was legally sufficient.
-
The court held that the initial warrantless search of the aircraft was valid due to probable cause and exigent circumstances, and the subsequent seizure of contraband was permissible under the plain view doctrine. Furthermore, even if the initial search were deemed illegal, suffi
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to suppress evidence and disclose the informant's identity, as probable cause for the arrest existed and disclosure was not essential for the defense.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the challenged evidence was properly admitted.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting evidence of similar acts with limiting instructions, or in allowing a co-defendant who pleaded guilty to testify, as no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause and that the defendant did not make the required substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing.
-
The court held that the jury selection procedure used did not constitute substantial failure to comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act, and that Smith's entrapment defense claims lacked merit. However, the court reversed Lee's conviction due to an improper jury instructio
-
The court held that a customs search of a mailed package based on an agent's suspicion that the contents were falsely declared was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and 19 U.S.C. § 482.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Tejeda of conspiracy and that the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence or denying severance. Christian's claims regarding informant disclosure and entrapment were also rejected.
-
The court held that the initial encounter between law enforcement and the defendant on the train constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the evidence discovered and statements made thereafter were tainted and should have been suppressed.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's car was lawful under the automobile exception and inventory search doctrines, and his confession was voluntary, thus affirming his conviction and sentence.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the residence and that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
-
The court affirmed the convictions and Tabares' sentence, but remanded for resentencing Ramirez with a two-level reduction in his offense level.
-
The court held that defendants waived their sentencing guideline calculation issue by failing to raise it in the district court, and that the district court's finding that Weaver was not a minor participant was not clearly erroneous.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior smuggling attempt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) are permissible for each firearm carried during a single drug trafficking offense, but the total sentence for such convictions arising from a single offense cannot exceed five years.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the hotel room, the translated Spanish statements were admissible, the prosecutor's summation was not improper, the jury instructions were adequate, and the sentences were
-
The court held that the district court erred in admitting drug records without proper foundation and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. It also instructed the district court to vacate Lai's conspiracy conviction if his continuing criminal enterprise conviction stands.
-
The court held that the district court erred in departing upward from the defendant's criminal history category based on factors already accounted for in the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for substitute counsel without inquiry, warranting reversal of the conviction. It also held that the denial of a continuance due to a superseding indictment prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal
-
The court held that prosecutorial misconduct and hearsay did not prejudice the defendant, and the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements for obstruction of justice and leadership were properly applied.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for severance, admitting post-conspiracy statements, or in its rulings on the admissibility of evidence, as the withheld evidence was either collateral, cumulative, or harmless.