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 while prosecutorial conduct before the grand jury was criticized, it did not rise to the level of reversible error or prejudice, and other claims lacked merit, thus affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the arrest of the appellant for driving with a suspended license was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even if the officer had a suspicion of narcotics offenses, because a reasonable officer would have made the arrest under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to ask the venire whether they would be more likely to believe the testimony of a law enforcement officer solely due to their position.
-
The court held that the airport detention and search were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and the admission of evidence, including Attardi's notes, was proper or harmless error.
-
The court held that the brother's search of the defendant's room was not a state action, and there was sufficient independent evidence to prove conspiracy.
-
The court held that the search warrant was valid despite a misrepresentation about an informant's status, and that the late disclosure of passports did not prejudice the defendants.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
-
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for marijuana possession, rejecting sufficiency-of-evidence claims and holding that a trial court cannot compel a newspaper reporter to reveal confidential sources without violating First Amendment protections.
-
A defendant's eligibility for the safety valve provision is not automatically forfeited due to continuing criminal activity or providing information only after being confronted, as long as all information is truthfully provided by the sentencing hearing.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instruction, or the denial of a safety valve reduction.
-
Tavares Williams was convicted by jury of selling cocaine and marijuana within 1000 feet of a school and public housing facility. The appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of guilt bec
-
The court held that the weight of waste water containing a trace amount of cocaine base should not be included in the sentencing calculation, but remanded for further findings on the role in the offense enhancement.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err by not giving a voluntariness instruction for a confession when the defendant did not request it or object to its introduction.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the government did not violate immunity agreements, evidence was admissible despite Miranda issues, forfeiture was supported, and speedy trial rights were not violated.
-
The court held that while admitting evidence of the defendant's positive drug tests for impeachment was proper, the failure to provide an immediate limiting instruction to the jury constituted plain error.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was not reversible based on prior circuit precedent, despite the dissenting judge's view that the precedent was misapplied.
-
The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one possession conviction due to insufficient evidence, remanding for resentencing. The court also addressed the admissibility of grand jury testimony.
-
The court held that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the vehicle, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a bill of particulars or in its sentencing enhancements.
-
The court held that the sentence enhancement for drug offenses near a protected location applies to any drug offense committed within 1,000 feet of a school, and that a notebook found with drugs and drug paraphernalia was admissible with a limiting instruction.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that jury instructions were adequate, evidence supported convictions for conspiracy, possession, and firearm offenses, and entrapment defense was not warranted.
-
The court held that undelivered marijuana negotiated by the defendant, even if not part of a conspiracy conviction, can be attributed to him for sentencing if it was part of the same course of conduct and reasonably foreseeable, and if the defendant intended and was capable of co
-
The court held that the defendant waived his right to challenge the suppression ruling by failing to object below, and that the admission of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion or plain error. The court also affirmed that a lesser included offense does not require a l
-
The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact to explain its drug quantity determination and its denial of a minor-participant reduction, requiring a remand.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for the conspiracy and firearm charges, and no prosecutorial misconduct or Brady violations.
-
The court held that the undercarriage inspection was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, the dog's alert provided probable cause, and a stipulation of weight for trial purposes is binding for sentencing.
-
The court held that the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence was clearly erroneous because the traffic stop was pretextual and not based on a reasonable officer's objective interest in enforcing the traffic violation.
-
The court held that the stop and frisk of the defendant were based on reasonable suspicion and that supervised release was a permissible sentence under the relevant statutes.
-
The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the substance of the buyer-seller relationship issue, and therefore, there was no reasonable probability of a different trial outcome had the requested instruction been given.
-
A law enforcement officer testifying as an eyewitness may not refuse to answer questions about the location from which observations were made if that information is relevant and helpful to the defense, and the district court erred in sustaining relevancy objections to defense que
-
A random stop of an automobile without reasonable suspicion, objectively gauged and based on articulable facts, violates the Fourth Amendment, and evidence arising from such a stop must be suppressed.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, following precedent that simultaneous possession of distinct controlled substances can be prosecuted separately.
-
The court held that a defendant cannot be sentenced separately for a lesser-included offense (cocaine conspiracy) when also convicted of a greater offense (continuing criminal enterprise) for the same conduct. It also held that multiple firearms used in relation to a single drug-
-
The court held that the implicit detention of the suspect was inherently coercive, rendering any subsequent consent to search invalid.
-
The court held that a conscious avoidance jury instruction was properly given because the evidence supported a finding that the defendant was aware of a high probability that the suitcase contained drugs and deliberately avoided confirming this fact. The court also held that a co
-
The court held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation under Miranda, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal argument and the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice were proper.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that the sentencing based on estimated drug quantity was not clearly erroneous.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in attributing 100 pounds of marijuana to the defendant nor in sentencing him as a career offender.
-
The court held that a malfunction in the court reporting system does not automatically warrant a new trial; prejudice must be shown, and defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice from the missing portions of the transcript.
-
The court held that the mother's consent to search was voluntary and that the admission of a prior conviction did not require a new trial. The evidence was sufficient to support the firearm conviction, and the obstruction of justice enhancement was proper.
-
The court held that the district court erred in admitting extraneous evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because its probative value was slight and substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
-
The court held that the continued detention and search of the defendant's vehicle exceeded the scope of a lawful investigative stop, rendering the evidence and statements inadmissible.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and that the jury instruction on false exculpatory statements and the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice were proper.
-
The court held that the district court's error in denying a party the opportunity to impeach a witness was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines applied to the defendant's conviction were consistent with the Sentencing Reform Act and governing statutes.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a mistrial based on the failure to allow a reasonable opportunity for the defense to request a poll of the jury after the verdict was read.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's remark about the defendant's non-citizenship was not preserved for appeal and, even if considered on the merits, was not prejudicial. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a guilty plea solely because the defendant refused to incriminate a co-defendant, but found the error to be harmless as the defendant was ultimately convicted of the same offense.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the motions to suppress, the convictions, and the sentence, finding that the encounters were consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause, and that the evidence and sentencing were proper.
-
The dissent argues that the facts of this case are indistinguishable from a prior controlling precedent, United States v. White.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in calculating the defendant's base offense level by including foreseeable drug quantities from the conspiracy and in refusing to decrease the offense level for minor or minimal participation.