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
-
Evidence consisting solely of the quantity of a controlled substance seized is sufficient to uphold an inference of intent to distribute.
-
The Coast Guard's boarding and search of a stateless vessel on the high seas was justified under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) and international law, and the subsequent discovery of marijuana was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the limited use of impeachment evidence or prior offenses, and that the admission of a coconspirator's hearsay statement, though erroneous, did not substantially influence
-
The court held that the district court erred in believing it was bound by the jury's quantity finding for sentencing purposes and must make its own findings regarding the defendants' intent and ability to distribute the negotiated quantity of drugs.
-
Flight and evasion constituting obstruction of justice requires more than instinctive reaction to police apprehension; a defendant's deliberate two-week evasion of authorities after arrest, followed by a forty-minute chase to escape capture, satisfies the willfulness requirement
-
The court affirmed convictions, finding substantial evidence supported conspiracy, possession, and distribution charges, and that evidentiary and procedural rulings were not erroneous.
-
The court held that the admission of redacted statements from a nontestifying codefendant, where names were replaced by neutral pronouns, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. It also held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for usi
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, but reversed the conviction for violating the Travel Act due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession, the admission of testimony regarding uncharged bad acts was not plain error, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a jury view of the field.
-
The court held that the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of extrinsic act evidence and a prosecutor's comment were not reversible error.
-
The court held that the DEA agents possessed reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Sokolow and his luggage, and that the subsequent detentions and dog sniffs were permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the seizure of the defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion and did not ripen into an arrest until probable cause existed, thus reversing the suppression order.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's actions did not improperly bolster witness testimony because there was no indication of extrinsic evidence convincing the prosecutor of the defendants' guilt.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to present a voice exemplar demonstrating a heavy accent without subjecting himself to cross-examination, due to the exemplar's low probative value and potential for prejudice.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for importing and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that venue was proper in the Western District of Missouri.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal for Stearns on the conspiracy charge, and that the jury's verdict of conviction on the lesser included offense should be reinstated. The court affirmed all other convictions.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, discovery, or a specific jury instruction, and that the indictment was sufficient.
-
The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the defendants' hotel rooms and that the officers' reasonable belief of peril justified non-compliance with the "knock and announce" statute.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove Michael DeLutis was a party to the conspiracy, reversing his conviction. The convictions of George and Shirley Eunis were affirmed.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the co-conspirator's statements and seized evidence were properly admitted.
-
The court held that the customs search of the shrimper was constitutional and that the admission of certain evidence and jury instructions were not erroneous.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the firearms count to go to the jury and that the defendant's claims of constitutional violations and entrapment were without merit.
-
The court held that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on the defendant for the entrapment defense and by refusing to give an entrapment instruction to one of the defendants. The court also found the instruction regarding the scrutiny of an informer's
-
The court held that corroboration of innocuous details from an informant's tip, which itself fails to meet the standards for reliability and dependability, does not establish probable cause for a vehicle search or arrest.
-
The court held that the admissibility of evidence depends on the validity of the California search, which requires further factual determination, and thus the case must be remanded.
-
The smell of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless search of a vehicle.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in finding that the appellant did not voluntarily consent to the search of his baggage, arguing the trial court's finding of voluntariness was not clearly erroneous.
-
The court held that the aural surveillance of defendants in a motel room did not violate their constitutional right to privacy, and the stops and searches of their vehicle were lawful.
-
The court adopts a 'clearly erroneous' standard of review for probable cause determinations, but this standard does not resolve circuit disagreements on the level of deference owed.
-
The court held that the stop was lawful, consent to search was valid, and prior conviction evidence was admissible to prove intent. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove a continuous course of conduct for the Travel Act conviction.
-
The court held that the joint trial of ten co-defendants did not subject the appellants to compelling prejudice, and affirmed the district court's denial of their severance motion. It also affirmed the sentencing decisions regarding acceptance of responsibility, managerial role,
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the denial of motions to dismiss, suppress, or compel production, nor in the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional findings, or comments made during closing arguments.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, admission of evidence, judicial remarks, jury instructions, or sufficiency of evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant's encounter with DEA agents was consensual, not a seizure, and that his consent to search his luggage and its contents was voluntary and valid.
-
The court affirmed jury convictions on narcotics charges, holding that evidence seized under the plain view doctrine was admissible and that the admission of co-conspirator statements and evidence of prior bad acts did not prejudice the appellants.
-
A prejudicial variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof at trial demonstrating multiple conspiracies requires reversal of the conspiracy convictions. However, convictions for possession with intent to distribute are affirmed if the evidence is str
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the entry was justified by exigent circumstances, and the restriction on cross-examination was within the trial court's discretion.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial.
-
The court held that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for stopping the appellant's truck and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of the appellant's luggage, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that the stop, detention, and search of the vehicle were lawful, and therefore the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for drug quantity, conspiracy, and other charges, and upholding the district court's evidentiary and procedural rulings.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, and that the denial of the motion to suppress and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines were not erroneous.
-
The court held that Auerbach's involvement in the drug conspiracy made him liable under the Travel Act for co-conspirators' interstate travel, and that Helish's convictions for conspiracy and possession were supported by sufficient evidence despite minor variances in the indictme
-
The court affirmed Smoot's conviction but vacated the sentences of both defendants, remanding for resentencing.
-
The court held that a warrantless search of a vehicle seized for forfeiture is permissible as an inventory search, but vacated a $2 million fine because the district court failed to consider mandatory sentencing guideline factors regarding the defendant's ability to pay.
-
The court held that the May 12 warrant authorizing a covert search for photographs, without immediate seizure of tangible evidence, was lawful under the Fourth Amendment and Rule 41, and that only Villegas had standing to challenge it.
-
The court held that the district court was not required to inform the defendant of the likely sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and that it was permissible to consider drug quantities from dismissed charges in calculating the base offense level.
-
District courts must apply the Sentencing Guidelines to 'straddle crimes'—continuing offenses that began before November 1, 1987, and continued after that date.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm during a drug offense, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts or co-conspirat
-
The court held that the admission of prior convictions and bad acts was proper, the denial of reopening evidence was within the trial court's discretion, joinder and severance of charges and defendants were appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.