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 defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea must demonstrate a 'fair and just' reason, which includes showing counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that prejudice resulted.
-
The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the warrantless search of her person, and this consent was not tainted by any prior illegal seizure.
-
The court held that post-arrest statements made after an ambiguous or clear request for counsel, without further clarification or waiver initiated by the defendant, should have been suppressed. The admission of these statements was not harmless error for the distribution counts.
-
The court held that a co-conspirator's statements made after a defendant's arrest are admissible if made in furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy by an unarrested co-conspirator. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no abuse of discretion in den
-
The court held that a jury can rationally find guilt for simple possession as a lesser included offense of possession with intent to distribute, even if the prosecution's evidence suggests distribution, and that cautionary instructions regarding extrinsic evidence were adequate.
-
Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is a 'drug trafficking crime' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), and thus a firearm charge under § 924(c) can be based upon it.
-
The court held that the appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated by the government's use of evidence from a prior acquitted conspiracy charge to support a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charge, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions and that any violations of the Doyle rule by the prosecutor constituted harmless error.
-
The court held that the defenses of the two defendants were not mutually antagonistic, and therefore, severance was not required.
-
The court held that a trial judge's ex parte interview of a juror, while not ideal, did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights or constitute reversible error when post-verdict interviews with counsel present demonstrated no prejudice. The court also found prosecutorial
-
The court held that the appellant waived his right to challenge juror bias by failing to raise the issue promptly and that the search was lawful based on voluntary consent.
-
The court held that the record did not clearly establish an unequivocal waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel, deferring the issue to a collateral proceeding.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the appellant's statements and financial records, and the transfer of evidence from Customs to the DEA was valid.
-
The court held that the government waived the issue of probable cause by failing to raise it timely, and that the prolonged detention of the suspect's luggage violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the detective had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on a corroborated informant's tip and that the warrantless search of her bag was lawful as incident to that arrest.
-
The majority erred in reversing conspiracy convictions based on a Rule 6(d) violation without considering demonstrable prejudice.
-
The court held that the search warrant for firearms lacked probable cause, and the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's refusal to provide handwriting exemplars violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the joint trial of both defendants was proper under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8(b) and 14, and that other claims of error were without merit.
-
The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the appellants based on the totality of the circumstances, and that statements made during the initial investigatory detention were admissible as they were not made during custodial interrogation.
-
The court held that the Customs patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an initial search of the vessel and probable cause for the subsequent, more intrusive search.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the van was not supported by probable cause, and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed Buster's conviction due to the admission of illegally obtained evidence.
-
The court held that prior inconsistent statements from a suppression hearing can be used to impeach a defendant's trial testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
-
The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, and his subsequent statements were voluntary and admissible.
-
The court held that Caucasian male defendants lack standing to allege discrimination in grand jury foreperson selection as an equal protection violation, and their allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim. The court also upheld the denial of motions to suppress
-
The court held that the evidence seized was admissible, the superseding indictment was not the product of prosecutorial vindictiveness, and the chain of custody was sufficient.
-
The Court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant established sufficient probable cause, and therefore the district court erred in suppressing the seized evidence.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause, and the admission of evidence of other crimes was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
-
The court affirmed the appellant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy, that venue was waived, and that the joint trial did not prejudice the appellant.
-
The court held that the officers' surveillance location, within an exclusionary fence and close to the mowed lawn, constituted part of the curtilage, making the warrantless observation a Fourth Amendment violation.
-
The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding severance, ineffective assistance of counsel, admission of evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and affirmed their convictions.
-
The court held that the discovery of an unusually large structural discrepancy indicative of a secret compartment, observed by a trained border patrol agent at a permanent immigration checkpoint, establishes probable cause for a search.
-
The court held that the search was a lawful border search, and the level of intrusion was reasonable given the specific suspicions.
-
The court held that the owner's consent to attach an electronic beeper to a leased airplane was sufficient to fall under the third-party consent exception to the warrant requirement.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle, making the subsequent seizure of marijuana illegal.
-
The court held that the admission of an informant's statement was harmless error and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
-
A district court has jurisdiction to reconsider its prior pretrial order dismissing an indictment during the appeal time, and should address the merits of such a motion.
-
The court held that the evidence was legally seized and sufficient to support the convictions for importing and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the stops and searches of both vehicles were constitutionally permissible, either based on probable cause derived from suspicious circumstances and evasive actions or reasonable suspicion for roving patrols.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing specific voir dire questions, admitting evidence, allowing prosecutor's remarks, or sentencing on all counts.
-
The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's non-responsive answer suggesting the appellant may have been in jail, and the jury's verdict form, did not constitute plain error affecting substantial rights.
-
-
The court held that the search of the Ford Galaxie constituted a valid extended border search, the stop and seizure of the driver's license were justified by founded suspicion and probable cause, compelled handwriting exemplars did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, the
-
The court held that the admission of evidence found on the appellant and her post-arrest statements were proper, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict Da Silva of conspiracy.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and substantive counts of importing and possessing marijuana, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges because the facts alleged, when construed most favorably to the State, could establish a prima facie case of constructive possession.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding drug trafficking methods and a rap verse found in the defendant's notebook, as these were relevant to the defendant's knowledge and intent and were admitted with appropriat
-
The court held that the defendants' Batson objection was untimely and that the exclusion of evidence regarding alleged entrapment and lost tapes did not violate their rights.
-
The court held that the district court impermissibly enhanced the defendant's sentence based on his national origin, rather than his involvement in drug trafficking from a source country.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the Batson challenge, that evidence was sufficient to convict Moreno for importing cocaine, but insufficient to convict Orguiza for conspiracy, and that the trial court erred by failing to make an on-the-record finding
-
The court held that the customs inspector had reasonable suspicion to conduct a more intrusive search of the vehicle, including drilling into a hidden compartment, based on the totality of the circumstances.