Prejudice From Delay

141 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Ross v. United States
  349 F.2d 210· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-30 ·cited 180×
  A seven-month delay between a narcotics offense and the swearing out of a complaint, when the prosecution relies solely on the arresting officer's testimony refreshed by a notebook and the defendant claims inability to recall due to the delay, violates due process.
• United States v. Asnaldo Sanchez
  722 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, and that prejudicial remarks by government witnesses were cured by the trial court's instructions, thus denying a fair trial was not reversible e
• Sterling H. Nickens v. United States
  323 F.2d 808· D.C. Cir.· 1963-09-19 ·cited 108×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while the delay in prosecution raised concerns, it did not constitute a reversible error given the lack of demonstrated prejudice and the jury's finding on entrapment.
• Williams v. United States
  250 F.2d 19· D.C. Cir.· 1957-11-01 ·cited 88×
• Isaiah Hedgepeth, Jr. v. United States
  364 F.2d 684· D.C. Cir.· 1966-06-30 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, despite a delay of over one year between arrest and trial, because the delays were largely attributable to the defense and not arbitrary or oppressive.
• United States v. Sweeney
  688 F.2d 1131· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-15 ·cited 68×
  The court held that an affidavit based on an experienced agent's recognition of a distinctive odor associated with methamphetamine manufacture, combined with other facts, established sufficient probable cause for a search warrant. The court also held that Grand Jury proceedings w
• United States v. Canty
  469 F.2d 114· D.C. Cir.· 1972-10-06 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed convictions for bank robbery and carrying a dangerous weapon, but vacated convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon and remaining counts of bank robbery, finding no reversible error in speedy trial claims or identification procedures.
• Blunt v. United States
  404 F.2d 1283· D.C. Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was valid, rejecting claims regarding competency, speedy trial, joinder of offenses, jury instructions, and transcript delay.
• Dock Perry Glenn and William M. Belvin v. United States
  303 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1962-05-25 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, cross-examination was not improperly restricted, evidence was sufficient, and defendants were not deprived of their right to counsel.
• United States v. Walters
  591 F.2d 1195· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the search was a valid border search justified by reasonable suspicion, and that the appellant was not denied her constitutional or statutory right to a speedy trial.
• Ellsworth P. Taylor v. United States
  238 F.2d 259· D.C. Cir.· 1956-10-25 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated due to significant delays and his lack of knowledge of the indictment, which prevented him from waiving the right.
• United States v. NEW Buffalo Amusement Corp.
  600 F.2d 368· 2d Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, and a slight variance between the indictment and proof at trial was immaterial and did not cause prejudice.
• United States v. Hillegas
  578 F.2d 453· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-14 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the time limits prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act's plan are tolled during the period between the government's dismissal of a complaint and its reinstitution of criminal proceedings by indictment.
• Shelton v. United States Bd. OF Parole
  388 F.2d 567· D.C. Cir.· 1967-11-01 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Parole Board retains jurisdiction to execute a violator warrant even if it defers action pending completion of criminal proceedings, but unreasonable delay in holding a revocation hearing for non-criminal violations can prejudice the parolee and warrant in
• In re Mercury Constr. Corp. v. The Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp.
  656 F.2d 933· 4th Cir.· 1981-08-12 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judges would hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awaiting action from the state court.
• Smith v. United States
  577 F.2d 1025· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 44×
  A parolee is not automatically entitled to release due to a delay in a final revocation hearing beyond 90 days if there is no intentional violation, no demand for a hearing until after the period expired, no prejudice from the delay, and the revocation results from a new offense.
• United States v. Bridgeman
  523 F.2d 1099· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed all convictions, finding that the arguments raised by the appellants lacked substantial merit.
• United States v. Ruisi
  460 F.2d 153· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits unlicensed intrastate dealing in firearms, and knowledge of the law's violation is not required for conviction.
• United States v. Cordell Cassell
  452 F.2d 533· 7th Cir.· 1971-10-06 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Cassell and Rice, finding no reversible error, but reversed Jackson's conviction due to the improper admission of his confession and handwriting exemplar obtained in violation of Miranda.
• United States v. Herman
  576 F.2d 1139· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and first-degree murder were supported by sufficient evidence, and his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated despite a lengthy delay caused by the government's interlocutory appeal.
• United States v. White
  488 F.2d 660· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while a flight instruction was erroneously given, it was harmless error due to other evidence, and that delays in indictment and trial did not violate due process or require dismissal.
• Jackson v. United States
  351 F.2d 821· D.C. Cir.· 1965-09-13 ·cited 40×
• Hanrahan v. United States
  348 F.2d 363· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-24 ·cited 40×
• United States v. Greene
  578 F.2d 648· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments, even if improper, did not affect substantial rights given overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the defendants were not denied their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Pitts v. State OF N.C.
  395 F.2d 182· 4th Cir.· 1968-04-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that extreme delay in bringing a defendant to trial, particularly when the defendant was incarcerated elsewhere and the state made no effort to secure him, violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Consol. Mut. Ins. Co. v. IVY Liquors, Inc.
  185 So. 2d 187· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-04-05 ·cited 36×
  Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company appeals from summary judgment requiring it to indemnify Ivy Liquors for damages from an assault committed by the store's general manager. The court reversed, holding that an assault committed by an employee acting in his capacity as general m
• State v. Bonamy
  409 So. 2d 518· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-02-10 ·cited 34×
  Florida appeals the trial court's order discharging a burglary defendant for alleged violation of his constitutional right to speedy trial. The court reversed, holding that the trial court applied an improper analysis by considering only the length of delay without balancing all
• Stroble v. Anderson
  587 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the 120-day period under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers was tolled and that the continuances were granted in compliance with the Agreement's requirements.
• United States v. Carini
  562 F.2d 144· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the 34-month delay between the filing of the information and the commencement of trial violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Holt
  448 F.2d 1108· D.C. Cir.· 1971-06-28 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the appellant was not afforded a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
• Young v. Travelers Ins. Co.
  119 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1941-05-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the insured was not required to give notice of an accident until a claim was actually made, given his reasonable belief that no accident had occurred and no claim would be made.
• United States v. Payden
  536 F.2d 541· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding misjoinder, admission of hearsay, pre-arrest delay, and failure to hold an identification hearing were without merit.
• Christian v. United States
  398 F.2d 517· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for an investigator prior to the completion of the defendant's mental examination, absent a showing of prejudice.
• United States v. Wickham
  618 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the delay in the revocation hearing was not unreasonable or prejudicial, and the modification of the sentence did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or statutory authority.
• United States v. Wiggins
  566 F.2d 944· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury instructions were proper, the delays did not violate speedy trial rights, and the prior conviction was admissible for impeachment.
• McCARTHY v. Kleindienst
  741 F.2d 1406· D.C. Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying class certification for the false arrest, constitutional, and conspiracy claims, and that the abuse of process claim should also be considered for class treatment, potentially through subclasses.
• Climpson v. State
  528 So. 2d 1296· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-08-02 ·cited 22×
  Appellant Climpson was arrested for cocaine offenses and filed a motion for discharge under Florida's speedy trial rule. Although the trial court failed to conduct the required hearing within five days of filing the motion, the court scheduled trial within the mandatory fifteen-d
• United States v. FAY
  505 F.2d 1037· 1st Cir.· 1974-11-11 ·cited 22×
  A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated due to an excessive and unjustified delay, requiring dismissal of the indictment.
• Robbins v. State
  730 So. 2d 313· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-02-03 ·cited 20×
• Simmons v. State
  485 So. 2d 475· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-03-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a defendant alleging his present sentence is enhanced by prior convictions, even if expired, has standing to attack those convictions for postconviction relief purposes.
• Coleman v. United States
  442 F.2d 150· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated due to an excessive and unjustified delay between arrest and trial, compounded by potential prejudice to his defense.
• Frick v. Mr. Quinlin
  631 F.2d 37· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that although the government's handling of the case involved confusion and delay, the petitioner was not prejudiced by these actions and therefore not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Rucker
  496 F.2d 1241· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the delay in his arrest and trial, and that the trial court did not err in refusing a lesser-included offense instruction or in allowing potential impeachment by prior convictions.
• United States v. Ottis Mayo Jones
  457 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence seized in Tennessee was not used in the Florida trial, and even if it were, independent evidence linked the defendant to the crimes, thus the conviction was not tainted. The court also found no speedy trial violation.
• United States v. Mills
  463 F.2d 291· D.C. Cir.· 1972-01-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the delay in arrest, while partially unreasonable, did not require dismissal due to insufficient prejudice shown.
• Carter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg.
  633 So. 2d 3· Fla.· 1994-01-20 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that violations of statutory time limits in professional disciplinary proceedings under section 455.225 are subject to the harmless error rule, requiring a licensee seeking dismissal to prove that delays prejudiced the fairness of proceedings rather
• Grady Monroe Holsen v. United States
  392 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1968-04-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the co-defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege prevented him from being compelled to testify and that statements made by the co-defendant in furtherance of the conspiracy were admissible.
• State v. Osborne
  781 So. 2d 1137· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-03-02 ·cited 16×
  The State appealed a trial court's dismissal of a sexual predator civil commitment petition based on the State's failure to bring the respondent to trial within 30 days of probable cause determination as required by Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act. The Fifth District Court of Appeal rev
• Shipley v. Belleair Grp., Inc.
  759 So. 2d 28· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-03-24 ·cited 16×
  A post-judgment motion for attorneys' fees and costs, even if filed approximately eighty days after final judgment, should not be struck as untimely if the trial court expressly retained jurisdiction to award fees and costs and the opposing party demonstrates no prejudice.
• Panhandle Coop. Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency
  771 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the EPA's penalty assessment, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion, and rejected the argument that a two-and-a-half-year delay in the administrative appeal violated statutory or regulatory requirements.