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 affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient for both counts and that the district court did not err in attributing 15 kilograms of cocaine to the defendant for sentencing purposes.
-
The court held that expert testimony mirroring a government witness's account of drug operations and injecting the defendant's ethnicity was improperly admitted and prejudicial.
-
The court held that the officers' actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that the defendant's admission of suitcase ownership was consensual.
-
The court held that the Montana prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause or collateral estoppel, as it charged different conduct and did not divide a single conspiracy into multiple prosecutions.
-
The court held that the investigative stop and pat-down were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's pretrial motions to suppress evidence and reveal an informant's identity, nor in admitting the seized substances or submitting the case to the jury.
-
The court held that the evidence seized was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that circumstantial evidence, including the quantity of cash, compacted cocaine, and coded notes, was sufficient to support a jury's finding of intent to distribute. The court also held that the admission of prior convictions and the federal prosecution itself did
-
The court held that the trial court's finding of an absence of good faith in deporting material witnesses, despite ambiguity, was sufficient to meet the standard for dismissal.
-
The court held that a jury instruction stating it is the jury's duty to find a defendant guilty if the government proves all elements beyond a reasonable doubt is proper.
-
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not proper on direct appeal and must be raised in collateral proceedings.
-
A district court, upon resentencing following a remand for correction of an improperly imposed sentence, lacks discretion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 to consider post-sentencing conduct, such as exemplary prison behavior, as a basis for reducing the sentence.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for severance or in its conduct during the trial.
-
The court held that the statutory definition of "short-barreled shotgun" is unambiguous and includes weapons with an overall length of less than twenty-six inches, regardless of barrel length. Therefore, the defendant's modified shotgun qualified for a sentence enhancement.
-
The court held that officers reasonably relied on a magistrate's probable cause determination under the good faith exception, despite technical warrant deficiencies, and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. The court also vacated and remanded Donahue's sentence for rese
-
The court held that probation under Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.7411 constitutes a "conviction" for purposes of federal firearm possession by a felon statutes, and that the denial of motions for a new trial and to vacate sentence was proper.
-
The court held that excusing college students from the venire does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement because college students are not a 'distinctive' group.
-
A guilty plea waives the right to challenge the legality of a search, thereby precluding a subsequent claim that an evidentiary hearing was required to determine if evidence was seized to enhance a sentence.
-
A defense lawyer must lay an evidentiary foundation before arguing that the absence of fingerprint evidence implies that such evidence could have been obtained and would have been exculpatory.
-
The court held that items previously discovered by lawful means are admissible even if later seized during an illegal search, and that a harsher sentence after retrial is permissible if not motivated by vindictiveness.
-
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to poll the jury regarding a highly prejudicial newspaper article published during the trial.
-
The court held that requiring a defendant to stand trial in prison garb was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt on this record.
-
Prosecution for both a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and its underlying predicate offenses does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
The court held that a defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute if they procure customers and maintain the market, even without direct participation in obtaining or holding the drugs.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial when inadmissible hearsay testimony, which directly implicated the defendant in drug distribution, was presented to the jury, and the government's case was otherwise weak.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified law enforcement officers disregarding the "knock and announce" requirement when executing a search warrant.
-
The mandatory minimum penalties established for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841 apply to conspiracy to commit that offense under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
-
The court held that the seizure of the duffel bag did not occur until the agent informed the defendant he planned to keep it, and at that point, the agent had reasonable suspicion to do so.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a suppression hearing without adequately developing the record on whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area of the vehicle and whether probable cause existed for the search and arrest
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the plastic bag into evidence, as its chain of custody was sufficiently established.
-
The court held that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness whose prior testimony was admitted, and therefore, admitting the testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
-
The court held that the United States Coast Guard had jurisdiction to board the Panamanian-flagged vessel in international waters based on a Statement of No Objection (SNO) obtained from the State Department, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession wi
-
The court held that the Miranda warnings were adequate and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing or reconsideration of the suppression motion, but the sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in determining the quantity of cocaine attributable to the defendant or in its procedural handling of the sentencing hearing.
-
The court held that the pre-arrest detention of the appellant was supported by probable cause, thus it was not a de facto arrest violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of consent to record a conversation was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the convictions.
-
The court held that defendants were entitled to a four-level reduction for minimal roles and a further downward departure because their minimal participation was present to a degree not contemplated by the guidelines.
-
The court held that the Miranda warning given to the defendant, even without explicit "at no cost" language, reasonably conveyed his right to an attorney, and thus the suppression of his post-arrest statements was improper.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting the defendant's constitutional claims and other arguments.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in accepting a stipulation regarding a witness's prior conviction, in sustaining a prosecutor's objection during closing argument, or in allowing the jury to rehear testimony. The court also found no basis to review the admission of
-
The court held that the initial warrantless entry into the defendant's residence was unlawful due to the absence of exigent circumstances, but remanded the case to determine if the subsequently issued search warrant was based on an independent source untainted by the illegal entr
-
The court held that the defendant waived arguments regarding limiting instructions for transcripts and minimal participation reduction, and that the admission of background hearsay testimony and the prosecutor's closing argument reference were not improper or plain error.
-
The court held that Federal Express records, microfilmed and maintained by the company, were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, even though the custodian lacked personal knowledge of their creation, and their admission did not violate conf
-
581 So. 2d 1305·
Fla.·
1991-07-11
The court held that it is not improper to convict and sentence for both sale and possession of the same contraband when the crimes occurred after the effective date of section 775.021, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988).
-
The court held that while the warrantless seizure of handguns from the defendant's home was erroneous, the error was harmless regarding the convictions, and the exclusionary rule does not apply to sentencing proceedings, thus affirming the convictions and sentences.
-
The dissenting judge would have remanded the case, finding the district court's determination of exigent circumstances to be clearly erroneous, but acknowledging the evidence might still be admissible.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no plain error in the prosecutor's closing argument and no ineffective assistance of counsel on the claims reviewable on direct appeal. The court declined to address one ineffective assistance claim due to an incomplete reco
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt, but vacated the fine imposed for costs of incarceration and supervised release.
-
The court held that the admission of a firearm under the plain view doctrine was proper, the jury charge on reasonable doubt did not constitute plain error, and the sentencing guidelines do not violate due process by allegedly vesting undue authority in prosecutors.