Presumption Of Innocence

1,260 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• 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.
• Juelich v. United States
  214 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1954-08-12 ·cited 14×
  A defendant cannot receive a fair trial if every member of the jury panel has formed an opinion of guilt based on pretrial publicity.
• Colt v. United States
  158 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1946-11-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not a citizen, as required by the statute.
• United States ex rel. Rubinstein v. Mulcahy
  155 F.2d 1002· 2d Cir.· 1946-06-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the bail set was excessive and therefore unlawful, and that the petitioner was entitled to release on reasonable bail.
• United States v. Kolodny
  149 F.2d 210· 2d Cir.· 1945-05-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that refilling containers with unstamped liquor, even if the original stamps were genuine, violates 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 2803(a) because the stamps must denote the quantity and tax payment for the spirits actually contained therein.
• Vaccaro v. State
  152 Fla. 123· Fla.· 1942-12-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a tax deed description must be certain within itself or refer to matters within the deed, and extrinsic evidence cannot be used to clarify it.
• Robinson v. State
  70 Fla. 628· Fla.· 1916-01-06 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, holding that a nine-year-old child was competent to testify and that alleged errors in jury instructions and prosecutorial statements did not prejudice the defendant. The court emphasized that errors must injuri
• Elliott Barnett v. State
  181 So. 3d 534· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-11-12 ·cited 13×
  Elliott Barnett appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery, arguing that his trial counsel's failure to request an alibi jury instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel or fundamental error. The First District Court of Appeal affirm
• Marston v. State
  136 So. 3d 563· Fla.· 2014-03-27 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's extensive voir dire comments about a defendant's constitutional right to remain silent violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that such comments were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal of the co
• Smith v. State
  907 So. 2d 582· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-07-15 ·cited 13×
  Antonio Smith appeals his drug and resisting arrest convictions, challenging the trial court's refusal to strike two biased prospective jurors for cause and denial of an additional peremptory challenge. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the prospe
• Mendez v. State
  898 So. 2d 1141· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-04-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by severely limiting defense counsel's voir dire examination, violating the defendant's right to a fair jury.
• THE Florida BAR v. Rose
  823 So. 2d 727· Fla.· 2002-06-27 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Bar challenged a referee's recommendation to suspend attorney Brent Allan Rose for alleged ethical violations in criminal defense representation. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding the referee's conclusions unsupported by competent and substantial evidence an
• Delo v. Lashley
  507 U.S. 272· U.S.· 1993-03-08 ·cited 13×
  The Constitution does not obligate state courts to give jury instructions on mitigating circumstances when no evidence is offered to support them.
• United States v. Linwood L. Alston
  D.D.C.· 1976-07-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding the burden of proof for an alibi defense and the elements of the offense, particularly when combined with weak identification evidence, constituted plain error requiring reversal.
• Willcox v. State
  258 So. 2d 298· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-01-21 ·cited 13×
  An erroneous word in a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence does not require reversal if the jury instructions, considered as a whole, were not misleading.
• Nelson v. Colorado. Louis A. Madden
  137 S. Ct. 1249· U.S.· 2017-04-19 ·cited 12×
  When a criminal conviction is invalidated on appeal and no retrial occurs, the state must refund court costs, fees, and restitution that were imposed based on that conviction, as applying the Mathews balancing test shows that defendants' interest in recovering their money outweig
• Pineda v. State
  805 So. 2d 116· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-01-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be compelled to stand trial in prison clothing and that the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the defendant's attire.
• Young v. State
  720 So. 2d 1101· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-10-12 ·cited 12×
  Richard Young appealed his conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct upon a minor, raising claims of juror misconduct and improper prosecutorial closing argument. The court reversed and remanded due to juror misconduct—specifically, a juror's concealment of her own experience wi
• Akins v. State
  694 So. 2d 847· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-06-04 ·cited 12×
  Kenneth Akins appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's refusal to excuse juror Kennedy for cause. Although the appellate court found that the juror should have been excused based on her equivocal statements about the presumption of innocence, it a
• Watson v. State
  693 So. 2d 69· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-04-25 ·cited 12×
  Tracy Watson appeals his aggravated battery conviction, challenging the trial court's imposition of a 30-minute time limit for voir dire examination. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, holding that trial courts have considerable discretion in mana
• Diaz v. State
  608 So. 2d 888· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-11-03 ·cited 12×
  Cesar Diaz appeals his convictions for aggravated battery with a firearm, auto theft, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court committed reversible error by denying Diaz's challenge for cause
• United States v. Payne
  944 F.2d 1458· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the failure to give a presumption of innocence instruction to the jury after it was sworn was not plain error because the purposes of the instruction were adequately served by other instructions and the jury's awareness of the presumption. The court also held
• United States v. Vario
  943 F.2d 236· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the use of an anonymous jury was justified by the obstruction of justice charge and publicity, the delay in resealing surveillance tapes was satisfactorily explained, and amendments to eavesdropping warrants were timely.
• Brown v. Pate
  577 So. 2d 645· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-03-27 ·cited 12×
  Alan Brown petitioned for a writ of prohibition after Judge Dorothy Pate denied his motion to disqualify her from presiding over a dependency proceeding involving his children. The court denied the petition, holding that Brown's grounds for disqualification—including the judge's
• United States v. Friedman
  909 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 12×
  Improper prosecutorial remarks during summation, which undermined the presumption of innocence and the role of defense counsel, warrant reversal of the conviction.
• Crowley v. State
  558 So. 2d 529· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-03-28 ·cited 12×
  Johnnie Crowley was convicted of cocaine possession and resisting arrest. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to two prosecutorial errors: improper cross-examination regarding prior felony convictions and improper closing argument suggesting the