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 investigatory stop and subsequent arrest of Basey were lawful, and the search of his vehicle incident to that arrest was also lawful. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove Ponce's participation in the charged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's car was valid under exceptions for searches incident to arrest and probable cause, that possession with intent to distribute is a valid predicate offense for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and that th
-
The court held that a jury instruction on aiding and abetting a conspiracy is permissible even if not explicitly stated in the indictment, and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
-
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove a defendant's predisposition in entrapment cases, except in limited circumstances to rebut specific assertions of government misconduct.
-
The court held that agents' eavesdropping by pressing an ear to a connecting door did not violate the Fourth Amendment, arrests were based on probable cause, and a warrantless entry into a hotel room, though illegal, did not require reversal of convictions.
-
The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause for every named probable converser in a wiretap application, and that an innocent, immaterial misstatement in an affidavit does not invalidate a wiretap order. The court reversed Davenport's conviction for f
-
An attorney operating under an actual conflict of interest deprives a defendant of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel, and reversal is automatic without a showing of prejudice.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and distribution convictions, the search warrant for the premises was valid, and the government's failure to disclose all details of a witness's deal was harmless error.
-
The court held that statements of a co-conspirator, even if hearsay, are admissible if made in furtherance of the conspiracy and if independent evidence establishes the conspiracy and the declarant's and defendant's connection to it, and do not violate the Confrontation Clause if
-
The court held that 21 U.S.C.A. § 955a extends U.S. criminal jurisdiction to all stateless vessels on the high seas engaged in drug distribution, regardless of a nexus to the United States, and that such seizures do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The dissenting judge believes the warrantless protective sweep of the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances and that evidence seized should be excluded.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for Evan Leake on all counts, and for Russell Greenway and Edward Shorr on Count 4. The court affirmed all other convictions.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue, reinstating bail, or in sentencing the defendant, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's closing re
-
The court held that a canine sniff of the exterior of luggage does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and the positive alert provided probable cause for a search warrant.
-
The court held that the defendant's retrial for conspiracy to distribute marijuana is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, as prior acquittals did not necessarily resolve facts essential to the current charge.
-
The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding of knowledge for the drug charges and that the 'deliberate ignorance' jury instruction was proper. The conviction for unlawful use of a passport and visa was also affirmed.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, arguing that the trial court properly handled the potential conflict of interest arising from joint representation by questioning the defendants and counsel.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence for aiding and abetting, the prosecutor's arguments were proper or invited error, and the sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act were constitutional.
-
The court held that the presentence report was not discoverable under the Jencks Act, Brady, or Rule 16 because these provisions are directed toward evidence in the hands of the prosecutor.
-
The court held that excluding the defendant and the public from a suppression hearing, except for the limited portion concerning secret profile criteria, was plain error. Additionally, the trial judge's jury instructions were so deficient as to constitute plain error.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants, but vacated and remanded for resentencing for some, finding no error in wiretap evidence, transcript use, or most evidentiary rulings, but remanding for resentencing consistent with guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying Poliak's motion for an evidentiary hearing on his alleged plea agreement, nor in denying Laskowski's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, nor in admitting evidence of Laskowski's prior marijuana dealing
-
The court held that a pretextual stop is unconstitutional if a reasonable officer would not have made the stop in the absence of the invalid purpose, and that the scope of a traffic stop is limited to its initial justification unless reasonable suspicion of other crimes exists.
-
A passenger train sleeping compartment is analogous to a hotel room for Fourth Amendment purposes, and a search without probable cause and a warrant violates a passenger's legitimate expectation of privacy.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Gracielo and Sabino of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, but insufficient to convict Jesus.
-
The court held that the government's use of a confidential informant did not constitute overreaching, evidence of prior bad acts was admissible, taped conversations were properly admitted, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and a variance between the indictment a
-
The court held that the disqualification of retained counsel was permissible under the Sixth Amendment, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution for continuing criminal enterprise after a conviction for a predicate offense, and the restriction of cross-examination was proper. Howe
-
The dissenting judge believes the panel opinion correctly applied legal principles to undisputed facts and would reverse the conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the '100 to 1 ratio' of cocaine to cocaine base in the Sentencing Guidelines is rationally related to Congress's objective of protecting public welfare and does not violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause or the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual pu
-
The court held that the search of the vessel was a valid extended border search, and the admission of prior acts evidence against Alfonso was an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the 'reasonable doubt' test, not the 'hypothesis of innocence' test, is the proper standard for reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases.
-
The court held that the magistrate erred in finding that voluntary consent automatically purged the taint of an illegal seizure, and that the issue of taint requires further factual findings. The court affirmed the finding of voluntary consent to accompany officers and to the sea
-
The court held that venue was proper in the Southern District of California for all counts, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings regarding witness competency, credibility, and discovery.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's repeated comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence, used to impeach his trial testimony, constituted reversible error because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the initial detention and subsequent arrest were based on reasonable suspicion and not a pretext for a search, and that the search warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. Expert testimony was properly admitted.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the rental car, the detention was lawful, consent to search was voluntary, and statements made after invoking counsel were admissible because the defendant initiated further communication.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions for drug offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or denying severance motions, but that multiple convictions for simultaneous possession and receipt of firearms were improper.
-
The court held that while evidence was sufficient for possession convictions, it was insufficient for importation convictions for some appellants and all convictions for two others. Motions to suppress were properly denied, and marijuana samples were admissible.
-
The court affirmed most convictions but vacated sentences for multiple firearm offenses for Hicks and A.J. Smith, remanding for resentencing.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that the wiretap affidavits sufficiently demonstrated the necessity of electronic surveillance.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated due to various excludable delays, including those from pretrial motions, joint trials with codefendants, and 'ends of justice' continuances.
-
Incriminating statements volunteered by a defendant during booking, after being advised of Miranda rights and requesting an attorney, are admissible if not made in response to interrogation about criminal activity. The admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement is permissi
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Elena Vila and Johnny Rivera for drug offenses. The court held that while the government committed a discovery violation by disclosing Rivera's statement about suitcase ownership late, it did not prejudice his substantial rights. T
-
The court held that the defendant's detention at the border patrol checkpoint was lawful, his consent to search was voluntary, and the search did not exceed the scope of his consent.
-
The court held that the officers had probable cause to stop and search the truck based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the subsequent search of the station wagon was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
-
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction but remanded for resentencing, finding the district court improperly departed from the Sentencing Guidelines based on co-conspirators' weapon possession.
-
The court held that a rational jury could find sufficient evidence to establish the required intent for conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the admission of William Bennett's prior drug smuggling convictions was proper under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403, and that the use of a single interpreter for multiple Spanish-speaking defendants did not violate their statutory or constitutional rights. The court