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 circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant knowingly participated in a conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated by the government's dismissal and reindictment procedure, and that compelling the defendant to speak specific phrases for voice identification did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing a coercion instruction and that any error in the jury instruction was harmless.
-
The court held that the defendant was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
-
The court held that placing a foot in a partially opened doorway to prevent it from closing, after the occupant opened it in response to a ruse, does not constitute a violation of the "knock and announce" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
-
The court affirmed the trial judge's grant of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in the judge's determination that admitting co-conspirator hearsay was an error that could not be cured by instruction.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession because the evidence did not sufficiently dispute the element of intent to distribute.
-
The court held that venue was proper, the search of the AURORA I was lawful based on reasonable suspicion, the evidence was sufficient to convict Taylor, and Rainey's statement was voluntary.
-
792 F.2d 581·
6th Cir.·
1986-06-11
·cited 6×
The court held that the use of a prior conviction to prove intent to sell in a second offense trafficking charge, without a limiting instruction, did not violate the Constitution under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to the prosecution's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland.
-
The dissent argues that the double jeopardy clause should afford greater protection against successive prosecutions than the majority's interpretation of Garrett v. United States allows.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the defendant's post-arrest statements and in refusing to sever the firearms charge.
-
A defendant cannot simultaneously deny committing the crime and assert the entrapment defense, and the trial court did not err in refusing to allow cross-examination about a witness's maximum potential sentence when that information was already ascertainable.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict the defendant of knowing and intentional possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that evidence derived from a Canadian wiretap was admissible because the investigation was solely Canadian and did not shock the judicial conscience or involve American agents acting as Canadian agents. It also held that voice exemplars and hearsay statements ident
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a lesser included offense instruction, admitting evidence of other acts, or denying the motion to dismiss the Travel Act count.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the exclusion of post-arrest hearsay statements and the giving of a missing-witness charge were not reversible errors.
-
The court held that the business records were admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that the evidence supported the conviction for conspiracy, either as a member or as an aider and abettor.
-
464 So. 2d 622·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1985-02-27
·cited 6×
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed defendant's convictions for simple possession of heroin and cocaine while affirming his convictions for possession with intent to sell those same drugs. The court held that simple possession is an included offense of possession with i
-
The court held that the district court's findings regarding the entry into Curry's hotel room were clearly erroneous, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing. For Silvestri, Sr., the court held that while the initial entry into his residence was illegal, the evidence seized
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's motions to suppress evidence, suppress an oral statement, deny individual voir dire, admit evidence of other crimes, or deny a continuance/mistrial for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
-
The court affirmed convictions for four defendants and judgments of acquittal for two others, finding sufficient evidence and proper procedure in most instances, while reversing acquittals due to insufficient evidence for two crew members.
-
The court held that the police had sufficient objective grounds for stopping the defendant's van based on reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent actions taken during the stop were reasonable and did not constitute an unlawful arrest.
-
The court held that an unauthorized seizure does not require exclusion of subsequently discovered items if their discovery is traceable to a lawful independent source not tainted by improper conduct.
-
The court held that the defendant's claims of grand jury abuse and entitlement to a new trial based on overturned prior convictions lacked merit.
-
The court held that the Speedy Trial Act clock began running on the date of the defendant's arraignment under the second indictment, not the date of reindictment, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice for his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the arrests were lawful under federal common law, affirming the convictions.
-
The dissent argues that the drug courier profile is an unconstitutional basis for seizure and that the conviction should be reversed due to insufficient cause.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument did not constitute reversible misconduct and did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial.
-
The court held that the conviction on Count III, charging possession with intent to distribute a half-pound of cocaine, was valid as it represented the core of a single criminal transaction, and other counts were surplusage or improperly brought.
-
-
The court held that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence seized was sufficient to support the conviction.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing due to a Supreme Court ruling on special parole terms for conspiracy convictions.
-
The court held that the "automatic standing" rule is overruled by Salvucci, and that separate sentences for "carrying" and "using" a firearm during the same felony are improper.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcase was not justified by exigent circumstances and violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that the appellant's confession was admissible because the arrest was based on probable cause and the confession was voluntarily given after the appellant initiated a conversation following his request for counsel.
-
The court held that the Customs officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search the vehicle, and that the evidence was sufficient to establish illegal importation of marijuana.
-
Border searches conducted at the point of entry are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment without the need for probable cause or any quantum of individualized suspicion.
-
The court held that the search and seizure of marijuana from the defendant's automobile did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the appellants' arrest and the searches of the automobile trunk and footlocker were lawful, affirming their convictions.
-
The court held that a routine stop at a permanent border checkpoint and a subsequent search based on the odor of marihuana do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the seizure and search of the Cadillac were lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, and the drug ledger was properly admitted into evidence.
-
The court held that the search and seizure of marihuana was lawful, as the agent had probable cause and the defendant's consent.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in accepting the border patrol agent's testimony that marijuana smells like marijuana, as this was a factual finding based on evidence and common sense, not improper judicial notice.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the appellant lacked standing to contest the search of his brother's car, and therefore, the drugs found therein were admissible.
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle was constitutional and the evidence was sufficient to convict.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a crawl space under a house, even with probable cause to believe it contained illegal aliens, was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the prosecutor's closing argument comment was a fair response to the defense. Entrapment is a question of fact for the jury.