Presumption Of Innocence

1,266 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• McDuffee v. State
  55 Fla. 125· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 16×
  Charles McDuffee was convicted of armed robbery in Escambia County and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. On writ of error, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed multiple assignments of error regarding jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and trial procedure, ultimately affi
• Lucas v. State
  67 So. 3d 332· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-07-13 ·cited 15×
  Eric Lucas appeals his convictions for burglary of a dwelling with battery and aggravated battery. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting challenges to the admission of his girlfriend's statements to police, jailhouse telephone recordings, and prosecutorial remar
• United States v. Primitivo Cortez
  935 F.2d 135· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony, that the Allen charge was properly given, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction. However, it found that admitting officers' opinion testimony on a witness's truthfulness
• United States v. Lewellyn Henry and Winston Franklin McNair
  849 F.2d 1534· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 15×
  The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the appellants knowingly possessed marijuana with intent to distribute and conspired to do so.
• Torres v. State
  520 So. 2d 78· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-02-09 ·cited 15×
  Miguel Torres was convicted of marijuana trafficking based on marijuana found hidden deep within a boat he was riding in. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish that Torres had the constructive k
• United States v. Mortimer Schaffer
  600 F.2d 1120· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that jury instructions regarding knowledge and the prosecutor's closing remarks did not constitute reversible error, and that materiality of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a question of law for the court.
• Walker v. Butterworth
  599 F.2d 1074· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to personally exercise peremptory challenges, when sanity is the sole issue and the prosecutor uses this as evidence of sanity, violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• State of Fla. ex rel. Sentinel Star Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Douglas S. Lambeth
  192 So. 2d 518· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-12-03 ·cited 15×
  The Sentinel Star Company sought a writ of prohibition or mandamus to block a pretrial publicity control order issued by the Criminal Court of Record in a misdemeanor prostitution case. The Florida District Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition bec
• Chandler Jones and S. Macie Jackson v. State
  187 So. 2d 915· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-06-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding exclusive possession of stolen property, when considered with other instructions, did not constitute fundamental error, and the ownership of the stolen property was sufficiently proven for the charge.
• Icenhour v. United States
  187 F.2d 663· 5th Cir.· 1951-03-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty against the appellant.
• Sanchez v. State
  133 Fla. 160· Fla.· 1938-07-08 ·cited 15×
  Vincent Sanchez was convicted of grand larceny by jury and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court considered seventeen assignments of error, including claims regarding illegal search and seizure, evidentiary sufficiency, prosecutori
• Hernandez v. Roth
  890 So. 2d 1173· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-12-29 ·cited 14×
  Ignacio Hernandez petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a condition of his pretrial release requiring urinalysis three times weekly. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this condition and denied the wr
• Parker v. State
  843 So. 2d 871· Fla.· 2003-03-27 ·cited 14×
  Thomas Parker challenges the constitutionality of Florida Statute §903.0471, which allows courts to revoke pretrial release and order detention upon finding probable cause that a defendant committed a new crime while on release. The Florida Supreme Court upholds the statute as co
• Andros Domonic Miller v. State
  785 So. 2d 662· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The trial court abused its discretion by severely limiting defense counsel's individual voir dire examination, thereby impairing the right to select a fair and impartial jury.
• Smith v. State
  771 So. 2d 1189· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-10-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the felony petit theft conviction must be reversed because the prior convictions were not properly alleged in the charging document and proven. The burglary and drug paraphernalia convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Menesses
  962 F.2d 420· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court reversed Harold Bratovich's conviction due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and aiding and abetting. The court affirmed the denial of Barreto's motion to suppress her confession and the increase in her offense level.
• United States v. Tipton
  964 F.2d 650· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting handwriting identification testimony, the prosecutor's closing argument was not misconduct, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Ronald Hodges (90-1124/1260)
  935 F.2d 766· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing of Ronald Hodges due to the erroneous refusal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. The court held that drug quantity and firearm possession are sentencing factors, not elements of the offense, and can be determined b
• Moreland v. United States
  932 F.2d 690· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-24 ·cited 14×
  Time spent in a halfway house under restrictive conditions constitutes 'official detention' for which a defendant must receive credit toward their sentence.
• United States v. Hollis Wesley Shaw
  894 F.2d 689· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's statements and identifications were admissible, and the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Barta
  888 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Stewart
  879 F.2d 1268· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct was harmless error, the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence was not plain error, and the statutory minimum sentence was not implicitly repealed by the Sentencing Guidelines.
• McSHERRY v. Block
  880 F.2d 1049· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the loitering statute was unforeseeable and deprived the defendant of due process notice.
• Innes v. Dalsheim
  864 F.2d 974· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing and intelligent due to the ambiguity in the trial court's explanation of the consequences of breaching the plea agreement.
• Herbert v. State
  526 So. 2d 709· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-11 ·cited 14×
  Rose Herbert was convicted of aggravated child abuse by malicious punishment for striking her 7-year-old son with a belt after he took money from her. The Fourth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the evidence insufficient to prove malicious punishment and ho
• Donnie Tarpley v. Dugger
  841 F.2d 359· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant was not compelled to wear prison attire, the prosecutor's comments did not deprive him of a fair trial, and his sentence for criminal mischief did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Potts v. State
  526 So. 2d 104· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-12-30 ·cited 14×
  Willie Potts, Jr. was convicted under Florida Statute 790.07(2) for carrying a concealed firearm while under indictment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the statute's prohibition on firearm possession "while under indictment" is unconstitutional as it violates subst
• King v. Lynaugh
  828 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Miller
  758 F.2d 570· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 14×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to ask a specific voir dire question regarding the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, as the general questions and subsequent jury instructions provided reasonable assurance of impartiality.
• United States v. Hollister
  746 F.2d 420· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's alleged co-perpetrator's prior criminal activities was not an abuse of discretion, and that the jury instructions and supplemental communications did not deny the defendant due process or a fair trial.
• Redding v. Benson
  739 F.2d 1360· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that value was a material element of attempted theft by deception was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Whiteside v. Parke
  705 F.2d 869· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the failure to define reasonable doubt, when considered under the totality of the circumstances, did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
• United States v. Wolters
  656 F.2d 523· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a taxpayer cannot generally rely on the Fifth Amendment to justify a complete failure to file an income tax return, and probation conditions requiring filing do not violate constitutional rights.
• Bumpus v. Gunter
  635 F.2d 907· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while some jury instructions were imperfect, they did not rise to the level of constitutional error that would deprive the petitioner of due process or the right to be convicted only under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found n
• United States v. DeFALCO
  644 F.2d 132· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 14×
  The plurality opinion presumes an inherent conflict of interest for an indicted attorney, potentially leading to ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
• United States v. Meadows
  598 F.2d 984· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for fraud, as the defendant's conduct did not constitute an affirmative misrepresentation or violate a duty to speak.
• United States v. Dawson
  563 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that trying a defendant in plain khaki clothing, which did not identify him as a prisoner, did not violate the presumption of innocence and thus did not deny him a fair trial.
• Davis v. Paul
  505 F.2d 1180· 6th Cir.· 1974-10-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that disseminating a flyer labeling individuals as 'active shoplifters' based solely on arrest, without conviction or opportunity to be heard, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• United States v. West
  504 F.2d 253· D.C. Cir.· 1974-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The court concurred that the government's failure to comply with Rule 46(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was an unwarranted rejection of a mechanism designed to ensure timely administration of justice for incarcerated defendants.
• United States v. Nelson
  498 F.2d 1247· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence, when requested or when the defendant objects, constitutes reversible error entitling the accused to a new trial. Additionally, the court found that the trial court failed to properly limit the j
• United States v. Lowell Scott Fields
  500 F.2d 69· 6th Cir.· 1974-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of commerce and possession for the firearm possession charge, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or appointment of counsel.
• Naughten v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  476 F.2d 845· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The court found that any alleged error in the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Tubbs
  461 F.2d 43· 7th Cir.· 1972-05-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the district court erred in allowing impeachment by prior convictions, the error was harmless given the strong evidence. The court also found no reversible error in allowing jury deliberations to continue late into the night.
• United States v. Shelvy
  458 F.2d 823· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to give a special identification instruction was harmless error, and that counsel's performance was not ineffective.
• United States v. Williams
  417 F.2d 630· 10th Cir.· 1969-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion by refusing to ask two specific questions during voir dire, as they were unclear and the judge's discretion is broad.
• Stone v. United States
  379 F.2d 146· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-16 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Carlucci
  288 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co.
  287 F.2d 667· 7th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' motion to suppress evidence was properly denied, and that the district court's findings of fraud in the voluntary disclosure were supported by the evidence, affirming the convictions.
• Smith v. State
  118 So. 2d 257· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-02-17 ·cited 14×
  Ray Smith and Buck Bellamy appealed their convictions for larceny of a bull, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding ownership and identity of the animal. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, holding that where a case is tried without a jury, the trial judge'
• Horton v. United States
  256 F.2d 138· 6th Cir.· 1958-06-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the distribution of a juror handbook, which contained a statement about sentencing discretion, did not constitute reversible error, nor did the other procedural issues raised by the appellants.