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 mere presence of a former informant in the jury venire, without any allegation of actual communication or prejudice, did not warrant quashing the venire or individual juror questioning. The evidence was also sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the unauthorized sale of government information constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol agents lacked the specific articulable facts and rational inferences necessary to establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of the appellants' vehicles.
-
The court held that the hearsay statement was improperly admitted under the coconspirator exception as to Dixon.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying David's motions to suppress evidence obtained from a beeper clone and telephone intercepts, and that the evidence was sufficient to support David's conviction for continuing criminal enterprise and Yarden's convictions
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the indictment was not multiplicitous, severance was not required, the display of cocaine was proper, expert testimony was admissible, and there was sufficient evidence for the convictions.
-
The court did not definitively rule on whether co-conspirator hearsay alone can support a conviction, reserving the issue for later.
-
The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenges to the sentencing statute were foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent, and the trial court did not err in its application of the sentencing guidelines regarding organizer status or acceptance of responsibility.
-
An officer's subjective motive for making a traffic stop is irrelevant if the stop is objectively legal and authorized by law.
-
Statements made during investigatory detentions in airport security rooms, where the suspect voluntarily accompanied officers and reasonably believed they were not confined, do not require Miranda warnings.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict the appellant of aiding and abetting the importation of controlled substances on January 14, 1985, as the circumstantial evidence did not establish his intent to make the venture succeed.
-
The court held that the defendant's evidence was insufficient to create a jury question on entrapment, as the informant was not a government agent and the defendant showed predisposition.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's rulings regarding the Speedy Trial Act, disclosure of a confidential informant, exclusion of evidence, or jury instructions.
-
The court held that the district court's rulings on probable cause, factual basis for guilty pleas, and suppression motions were correct.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for knowingly participating in the drug conspiracy, and that various trial errors were either not preserved or not prejudicial.
-
The court held that the Miranda warnings given were adequate and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
-
The court held that the search and seizure of evidence from the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the admission of TECS cards was proper.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to accept a nolo contendere plea without establishing a factual basis, nor in denying motions for recusal or a new trial based on juror competency. The court also found that the admission of certain statements, evidence
-
The court held that evidence of a prior arrest for marijuana possession, even with an acquittal, was admissible to prove knowledge and intent in a subsequent drug possession trial.
-
The court held that the evidence established that the defendant 'used a firearm to commit a felony' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) by using guns as part of a security operation for drug distribution, and that there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession of cocaine.
-
Jesus Jiminez was convicted of manufacturing and distributing marijuana after police discovered a sophisticated grow operation at his residence containing 210 plants and large quantities of packaged marijuana. Jiminez appealed on three grounds: insufficient evidence, improper adm
-
The court held that the evidence was not the fruit of an illegal detention and that the statutory sentencing disparity for cocaine base does not violate due process.
-
The court held that a defendant can be held accountable for a co-defendant's reasonably foreseeable possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, even if the defendant was unaware of the firearm.
-
The court held that while the prosecutor's argument regarding the absence of an alibi witness was improper, it did not constitute plain error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the convictions.
-
The district court's finding that the defendant was free to leave during the initial questioning was a factual determination that should be affirmed.
-
The dissent argues that a sentencing judge improperly relied on their own evaluation of a prior acquittal's merits, violating due process.
-
-
The court held that the government had a responsibility to inform the court that the appellant's prior youth offender conviction had been set aside.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of government witnesses regarding a confidential informant's past activities, nor in refusing requested jury charges on knowledge and specific intent.
-
The quantity of marijuana is not an essential element of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute or possession with intent to distribute, and thus need not be alleged in the indictment or proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, finding the upward adjustment for role in the offense was improperly applied.
-
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the defendant's luggage for a narcotics-detection dog sniff, and the initial encounter was consensual, thus not implicating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that tapping a propane tank to assess its structural integrity, which could reveal the presence of non-contraband items, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of a government informant, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
-
The court held that expert testimony describing a drug operation's modus operandi, without directly stating whether the defendant had the requisite mental state, does not violate Fed.R.Evid. 704(b).
-
The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, held that a warrant obtained in partial reliance on observations from an illegal search, issued over 48 hours after entry, was valid.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural errors in the sentencing process.
-
The admission of drug courier profile testimony for background purposes, even without objection at trial, does not constitute plain error if it was not used as substantive evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in conducting voir dire, denying a mistrial, or refusing to excuse a juror for cause, and that the appellants' other claims lacked merit.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, but declined to rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.
-
The court held that the search of the aircraft and luggage was lawful as it occurred at the functional equivalent of the border, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the admission of cocaine into evidence was proper despite a break in chain of custody, and that limitations on cross-examination and exclusion of certain evidence did not prejudice the defendant.
-
The court held that the federal narcotics agents lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop, as the appellants' conduct was not sufficiently unusual or indicative of criminal activity when viewed objectively.
-
The court held that the appellants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the use of electronic tracking devices, the warrantless entry to arrest Botero, or the search warrant affidavit, and that Cantalupo's post-arrest statements were admissible.
-
The court held that the conspiracy statute 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require proof of an overt act, and that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, fairly stated the law and did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court held that the trial judge's comments on the credibility of defense witnesses constituted reversible error, and that the handling of motions to compel disclosure of a confidential informant also constituted error requiring remand.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's car was permissible under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, and that while the admission of hearsay evidence to show predisposition was error, it was harmless.
-
The court held that an investigatory stop, even with a drawn weapon, can be lawful if justified by the circumstances and officer safety concerns, and does not automatically constitute an arrest.
-
The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various challenges, including those related to search and seizure, sufficiency of evidence, variance, conflict of interest, co-conspirator statements, cross-examination, presentat
-
Convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise are affirmed, as the evidence was sufficient and no reversible error occurred.