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 trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or excluding evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the defendant abandoned the bag of cocaine, thus lacking standing to challenge its seizure, and that his consent to search his car was voluntary. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and substantive drug offenses, and that the admission of coconspirator guilty pleas and a brief mention of plea bargaining did not prejudice the defendant, nor did the separate conspiracy
-
The court held that the failure to conduct a Rule 44(c) inquiry is not reversible error unless an actual conflict of interest is demonstrated. The court also held that sufficient independent evidence linked the appellant to the conspiracy to admit coconspirator statements and sup
-
The court held that post-arrest statements elicited surreptitiously, without notice to counsel, are admissible if they concern a separate crime and are admitted to show consciousness of guilt, not the original offense.
-
The court held that the district court properly admitted a portion of an unavailable witness's grand jury testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), and any error in excluding other portions was harmless.
-
The court held that the Coast Guard's random search of an American vessel on the high seas was valid, and the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of trash was lawful, the search warrant was valid, evidence of prior convictions was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the trial judge's failure to recharge the jury on willful membership in the conspiracy, when responding to a jury's request for clarification, constituted reversible error.
-
The court held that the initial stop of the defendants' vehicle was a legitimate investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent seizure of cocaine in plain view was valid.
-
The court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of cocaine from a co-defendant's apartment on the conspiracy count, but had automatic standing on the possession count. However, the court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit to the Fourth Amendment
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of evidence of a prior foreign conviction
-
The court held that the search was valid because the Sarita checkpoint is the functional equivalent of the border, and the driver had sufficient dominion and control to possess the marijuana.
-
The court held that a second trial after a mistrial declared upon defense motion, even if necessitated by prosecutorial error, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The jury instruction regarding quantity and purity of drugs was supported by evidence and not plain error. I
-
The court held that admitting evidence of marijuana transactions to prove predisposition for cocaine distribution was proper under Rule 404(b), and the dismissal of a single juror with anti-jury sentiments did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is affirmed, rejecting all his contentions on appeal.
-
Evidence of flight alone is insufficient to support a conviction for knowingly possessing marijuana with intent to distribute when the defendant was a passenger and there is no other evidence of knowledge.
-
The court held that the stop and search of the appellant's vehicle were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that a search of a U-Haul trailer, conducted pursuant to a state-issued warrant from a non-court of record, was lawful and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if the initial stop was for a routine traffic check.
-
The court held that the officer lacked a founded suspicion to justify stopping the appellant's vehicle, and therefore the evidence found was inadmissible.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying defendants' motions to quash the jury panel without allowing inquiry into prior jury service in narcotics cases and in consolidating cases without proper severance.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority incorrectly interprets the scope of review for magistrate recommendations, creating an illogical distinction between accepting and rejecting them.
-
The court held that the initial stop of the defendant's truck was arbitrary and lacked reasonable suspicion, rendering the subsequent search and arrest illegal. The court reversed the conviction due to the tainted evidence.
-
The court held that the motion to suppress was correctly denied because the search occurred before the Supreme Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez, which is applied prospectively.
-
The court held that the Miranda warnings given were sufficient and the 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction was proper. The proof of the substance being cocaine was also adequate.
-
The court held that the defendants were not prejudiced by the pretrial non-disclosure of an informant's identity, nor by restrictions on cross-examination and argument, and that their convictions were otherwise valid.
-
The court held that even if the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked probable cause, the evidence seized is admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the officers reasonably relied on the warrant issued by a neutral magistrate.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on juror English proficiency claims raised post-verdict, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments, while improper, did not constitute plain error given the context of defense coun
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual and not a seizure, and that Springer abandoned the suitcase, thus the suppression of evidence was erroneous.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant's proffered expert testimony regarding tape alteration and in admitting the government's authenticated tape recording, and that sentencing enhancements were pro
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in jury instructions, admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing enhancements, or constitutional challenges.
-
A defendant can be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence for a specific drug offense, such as cocaine, even if they did not know the exact type of drug involved, as long as they knew they were transporting a controlled substance.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found during the vehicle search, nor in refusing to suppress roadside statements, and that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act are constitutional and apply to all defendants, and that individual claims regarding jury selection, prosecutorial comments, and jury instructions
-
The court held that a prior state felony conviction, even if probated and no longer subject to direct appeal, is considered 'final' for federal sentence enhancement purposes under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment and that the defendant's challenge to the presentence report was moot because the court stated it would not consider the disputed information.
-
The court held that the government's conduct in approaching the defendant's home and purchasing drugs did not constitute a search requiring probable cause, and that the late disclosure of certain evidence did not violate Brady v. Maryland.
-
The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict Coates beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the search of an abandoned hotel room and its contents did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that an agent's rough notes of an informant's tip are not 'statements' under Rule 26.2, routine biographical questions are permissible post-Miranda silence, and a prosecutor's comments on the lack of evidence for a defense theory do not impermissibly shift the burd
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in disqualifying retained counsel due to potential conflicts of interest that the defendants could not knowingly and intelligently waive.
-
The court held that the border patrol's stopping, questioning, and referral of the appellant to a secondary inspection site at a permanent checkpoint were constitutional, and the subsequent search of the truck was justified by the plain view doctrine and probable cause.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant failed to establish a cognizable class for his jury selection challenge and that his statutory claim regarding jury wheel refilling was procedurally deficient. The court also found the jury instruction on specific inte
-
The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled because the defendant was a fugitive from justice, and that the identification evidence was sufficient for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that a tribal police officer had the authority to investigate on-reservation violations of state and federal law by non-Indians, and that the search conducted was reasonable under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the cocaine found in the defendant's bag was admissible evidence because its discovery was the result of a valid protective search for weapons under Terry v. Ohio, and the denial of the motion to disclose the informant's identity was proper as the informant wa
-
Michael Sampson appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and cannabis with intent to distribute after police found drugs in a fanny pack on a borrowed bicycle. The court reversed the conviction for cocaine possession with intent to sell, finding insufficient evidence of
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to give a 'missing witness' instruction and in applying a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjury.
-
The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing due to double-counting of offense level adjustments.
-