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 admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was an error that was not harmless, and the government's violation of the Jencks Act required reversal.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding grand jury discrimination, dismissal of a count, suppression of evidence, and sufficiency of evidence, affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the joinder of counts was proper under Rule 8 and the denial of severance under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion. The admission of certain testimony was deemed harmless error.
-
The court held that the improper bolstering of a key witness's credibility and the erroneous jury instruction on conspiracy proof constituted reversible error.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy or possession of marijuana.
-
The court held that customs agents had probable cause to search the appellants' vehicle for contraband, justifying the seizure of marijuana.
-
The court affirmed Turner's and Smith's sentences, but remanded Turner's for specific procedural compliance, vacated Beler's sentence, and remanded for resentencing due to factual errors.
-
The court held that the chain of custody for the cocaine was sufficient for admissibility, and that constructive possession and carrying a firearm in a vehicle during a drug trafficking crime are valid grounds for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
-
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's inference that the defendants knew about the marijuana on board, and that the jury's verdict should not be overturned.
-
The court held that the use of a trained canine to sniff the interior of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
-
The court held that a defendant's amnesia does not per se render them incompetent to stand trial, and that severance is not required when defenses are merely antagonistic rather than irreconcilable.
-
The court held that the negligent loss of a crucial tape recording by the government, without bad faith, did not require suppression of testimony or a new trial, especially when the defense was aware of the loss during the trial and the overall evidence of guilt was strong.
-
The court held that the two-level enhancement for playing a primary role in the offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1(c) was improperly applied because the offense of conviction involved only one participant.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the joinder of defendants, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous claims.
-
The court held that while multiple § 924(c)(1) charges can stem from separate drug trafficking offenses, the indictment's failure to properly distinguish the predicate offenses for each firearm charge necessitates vacating one conviction.
-
The court held that the arrest and search of the defendant's vehicle were lawful, and the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) was constitutional.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and importation of marijuana, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or denial of severance motions.
-
The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of a borrowed car and that the initial traffic stop was a pretext for an illegal search, rendering the subsequent consent invalid.
-
The court held that the indictment was not defective, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting transcripts with speaker identities, or admitting certain conversations, and the jury instructions were proper.
-
The court held that the appellant lacked standing to contest the search of the pickup truck, and alternatively, that the warrantless search and seizure were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was
-
A defendant waives the entrapment defense by pleading guilty, and a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) does not preserve the entrapment issue for appeal. Furthermore, the government's conduct in this case did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to bar prosecution.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine, but the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful. The conviction is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on simple possession.
-
The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence, particularly telephone records, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly joined a conspiracy or possessed and imported marihuana.
-
The court held that the defendant's trial on the conspiracy counts of the second indictment was barred by double jeopardy because the evidence demonstrated a single, continuing conspiracy. The court affirmed the conviction on the substantive count.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the past marijuana dealings of the appellant's brothers.
-
The court held that the warrantless searches of the warehouse and the truck were justified under exigent circumstances and probable cause, and that the search of the vessel was permissible under the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement.
-
The court held that there was probable cause for the initial search of the vehicle and that the trial judge properly denied the motion for recusal.
-
The court held that the use of trained dogs to detect the odor of marijuana emanating from a semi-trailer, in an area open to the public, did not constitute an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the new rule announced in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States should not be applied retroactively to searches conducted before its decision, even if the case was pending on direct appeal.
-
The court held that the marijuana was found in a valid border search, and the admission of other evidence, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that probable cause supported the search warrant and that the jury instructions and evidence were sufficient for the firearm offense conviction.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that warrantless entry into a hotel room was justified by exigent circumstances, seizure of suitcases was permissible under plain view, and the automobile exception allowed warrantless search of a vehicle.
-
The court held that neither appellant had a legitimate expectation of privacy to contest the search, and that the search was valid due to consent and subsequent warrants; however, the evidence was insufficient to convict Crosby.
-
The court held that the jury instruction regarding inferring knowledge from driving was erroneous and prejudicial, requiring a new trial for Martinez. For Sidle, the evidence for the residue quantity was insufficient, and a prosecutor's improper argument required a new trial on t
-
The appellate court affirmed the validity of an antenuptial agreement but reversed the trial court's modification of its terms regarding alimony and its award of the marital home.
-
The court held that the search warrant was valid under the good faith exception and the evidence was sufficient for the firearm conviction, but reversed the sentencing enhancement based on uncharged drug quantities due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson, and the evidence was sufficient to convict him of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
-
Mere possession of a firearm is insufficient for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), but the totality of circumstances here, including the gun's location in the area of drug transactions, provided a sufficient nexus to infer intent to use.
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle was a lawful inventory search, joinder and severance were proper, jury instructions were appropriate, evidence was admissible, and the wiretap was lawful.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for CCE status, upholding joint trials, and allowing admission of evidence and denial of recusal motions.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched luggage, and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for possession and conspiracy, probable cause for arrests and searches, and no prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court affirmed convictions, holding that a defendant waives a juror misconduct claim by failing to report it before the verdict, and that other claims lacked merit or sufficient proof.
-
The court affirmed the convictions of all appellants, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings regarding guilty pleas, evidentiary decisions, or the admission of evidence.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider individualized factors in sentencing, imposing maximum sentences based on the crime's magnitude and general deterrence rather than the defendants' culpability.
-
The court held that the surveillance officers had probable cause to arrest Piedrahita, that Albeiro's statement was admissible co-conspirator hearsay, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, and that Ginsberg's conviction for possession was supported by evidence of ai
-
The court held that the Miranda warnings given to the defendant were defective because they failed to inform him of his right to have counsel present during questioning, and the admission of his post-arrest statements was not harmless error.