Presumption Of Innocence

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

• Braswell v. State
  306 So. 2d 609· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-01-28 ·cited 8×
  Braswell was convicted of a crime after taking the stand in his own defense and initially denying any prior convictions. The prosecutor later revealed a 24-year-old military court-martial conviction for larceny and elicited an admission from Braswell. The appellate court reversed
• United States v. Williams
  498 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1974-06-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on the defendant appearing in jail attire, nor in its jury instructions regarding the definition of 'forged' and 'falsely made'.
• United States v. Faulkner
  488 F.2d 328· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search of the automobile was constitutional and that the jury instructions properly placed the burden of proof on the government. Both convictions are affirmed.
• Goodspeed v. Beto
  460 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that most of the petitioner's claims were without merit or previously decided, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of being tried in prison garb.
• United States v. Quinn
  398 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1968-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's actions in causing a large prepayment of rent, despite warnings about the association's liquidity and his own financial difficulties, constituted willful misapplication of funds, and the trial court did not err in its instructions or rulings.
• United States v. Giuliano
  383 F.2d 30· 3d Cir.· 1967-08-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prosecutor's summation did not impermissibly comment on the defendant's failure to testify, as the comments were in rebuttal to the defense's attack on witness credibility and focused on the evidence presented.
• United States v. Ward
  360 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1966-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a common design and concert of action, and that the defendant's arguments regarding prejudicial testimony and entrapment lacked merit.
• Black v. United States
  353 F.2d 885· D.C. Cir.· 1965-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the conviction should be overturned due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent and prejudicial publicity.
• United States v. Barnett
  346 F.2d 99· 5th Cir.· 1965-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a court initiating a criminal contempt charge must have the power to determine whether the proceeding should continue to trial.
• Guarino v. State
  133 So. 2d 596· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-10-11 ·cited 8×
  Paul Guarino was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocenc
• United States v. Martin
  223 F.2d 666· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, despite a potentially misleading statement, ultimately did not prejudice the defendant by clarifying the jury's ability to consider witness incentives.
• Wolcher v. United States
  218 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1954-12-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when considered in context with other given instructions, did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defendant, nor did they instruct the jury to disregard evidence corroborating the defendant's testimony.
• Stack v. Boyle
  192 F.2d 56· 9th Cir.· 1951-10-03 ·cited 8×
• Wright v. United States
  189 F.2d 699· D.C. Cir.· 1951-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instruction, while imperfectly worded, did not constitute reversible error because it allowed the jury to infer guilt from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, rather than creating a mandatory presumption of law.
• Austin v. State
  40 So.2d 896· Fla.· 1949-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to compel the state to elect between indictment counts or in its jury instructions regarding circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt. The court also
• Welch v. State
  189 So. 3d 296· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-04-13 ·cited 7×
  Curtis Welch appeals his convictions for stalking and aggravated stalking, challenging the trial court's denial of cause challenges to two prospective jurors and asserting a double jeopardy violation. The appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial based on erroneous den
• Farley Bernard Curry, Jr. v. State
  169 So. 3d 1258· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-07-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the omission of a reasonable doubt jury instruction constituted fundamental error requiring reversal.
• Washington v. State
  955 So. 2d 1165· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-04-30 ·cited 7×
  The trial court abused its discretion by removing a sitting juror (McCoy) and replacing her with an alternate based solely on her pattern of asking numerous questions that the judge deemed argumentative and hostile. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the ju
• Walker v. State
  701 So. 2d 1258· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-12-05 ·cited 7×
  Eddie Walker appealed his cocaine trafficking and delivery convictions, arguing that the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to present evidence in support of his entrapment defense, thereby violating his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The appellate court affi
• Blanco v. Dugger
  691 F. Supp. 308· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the identification procedures used were not unduly suggestive and did not violate due process, and that the aggravating circumstances used to support the death sentence were properly applied under Florida law.
• Harp v. The Honorable Harry G. Hinckley
  410 So. 2d 619· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-03-03 ·cited 7×
  This case addresses whether Florida trial courts may use bail as a preventive detention tool to protect the community from future criminal acts by a defendant. The court held that bail may only be used to ensure a defendant's appearance at trial, not for preventive detention purp
• Sistrunk v. Edmund Lyons & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa. & Dist. Attorney of Phila. Cnty.
  646 F.2d 64· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 7×
• United States v. Blackburn
  592 F.2d 300· 6th Cir.· 1979-01-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that refusing a stipulation of prior felonies and admitting a felony conviction over ten years old were not reversible errors.
• Preston v. State
  260 So. 2d 501· Fla.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 7×
  John Preston appeals his robbery conviction and life sentence, challenging the constitutionality of Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.250, which provides that defendants who call witnesses must forego the right to make the final closing argument to the jury. The Florida Supreme C
• Majors v. State
  247 So. 2d 446· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-05-18 ·cited 7×
  John Henry Majors III was convicted of aggravated assault after a joint trial with co-defendant Johnny Lee Bellamy, despite four prosecution witnesses testifying that Bellamy, not Majors, shot the victim. The appellate court reversed, holding that when the prosecution's own evide
• Bridges v. State
  207 So. 2d 48· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-02-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court properly granted a directed verdict because the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence.
• Grady v. State
  129 Fla. 416· Fla.· 1937-10-14 ·cited 7×
  Ethel Grady was convicted of manslaughter for a fatal automobile accident, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination and the trial court's failure to adequately cure the improper statement's prejudicial
• Cannon v. United States
  116 U.S. 55· U.S.· 1885-12-14 ·cited 7×
  The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the territorial court, holding that the definition of "cohabit" under Section 3 of the Edmunds Act does not require sexual intercourse. The Court found that living in the same house with two women, eating at their respective tables a por
• Oliver v. State
  125 So. 3d 244· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-02-27 ·cited 6×
  Robert Oliver appeals his consecutive life sentences for lewd and lascivious molestation and capital sexual battery of a child, challenging the trial court's placement of a screen in the courtroom to shield the child victim from viewing the defendant during testimony. The court r
• Croce v. State
  60 So. 3d 582· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-05-18 ·cited 6×
  Ernesto Croce was convicted of cocaine possession, but the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously denied a cause challenge to remove a juror who expressed concerns about her ability to remain impartial due to her past trauma as a
• In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure
  26 So. 3d 552· Fla.· 2009-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, primarily in response to recommendations from the National Juvenile Defender Center's 2006 assessment of juvenile delinquency proceedings. The amendments address early appointment of counsel,
• Syder v. State
  921 So. 2d 871· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon but vacated one of two convictions for possessing the same firearm on separate occasions, finding the second conviction violated double jeopardy principles.
• Cramer v. State
  843 So. 2d 372· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-05-02 ·cited 6×
  David Cramer appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to him being tried while shackled and wearing jail-issued clothing. The court reverses, holding that Cramer stated a facially sufficient claim for
• Chauncey Chavers v. State
  827 So. 2d 279· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-08-21 ·cited 6×
  A dissenting opinion argues that a trial judge lacks discretion to remove a juror during a criminal trial based on pre-existing ideas about evidence, and such removal may implicate double jeopardy grounds.
• Williams v. State
  755 So. 2d 714· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-08-11 ·cited 6×
  Charles Williams appeals his conviction for sexual battery and indecent assault against minors. Although the appellate court found error in the trial court's denial of two cause challenges to jurors who showed bias against the presumption of innocence, it affirmed the conviction
• Hayward Anderson v. State
  739 So. 2d 642· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in limiting voir dire.
• United States v. Sarault
  975 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the upward departure from the guideline sentencing range was justified because the defendant's RICO conviction, based on a pattern of extortion, caused a significant disruption of governmental functions, which is an aggravating circumstance not adequately cons
• Clay v. State
  595 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-03-11 ·cited 6×
  Brenda Clay was convicted of petit theft (a lesser included offense of armed robbery) and resisting a merchant. The trial court reclassified her petit theft conviction to felony petit theft at sentencing based on prior theft convictions, but the court erred because the charging d
• United States v. Knox
  950 F.2d 516· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the § 924(c) conviction was properly predicated on a drug trafficking crime and that the evidence supported the finding of using a firearm in relation to the drug offense. The court also found no error in the denial of the motion to
• Shafer v. State
  583 So. 2d 417· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-08-01 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court vacated felony DUI conviction because the state failed to allege specific prior DUI convictions in the information and jury instructions violated the defendant's presumption of innocence by referencing the felony charge.
• Allen v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  926 F.2d 74· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions did not shift the burden of proof or create a miscarriage of justice, and that counsel's failure to object to instructions or move to suppress identification did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• United States v. van Helden
  920 F.2d 99· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that the jury instructions, viewed in totality, did not constitute reversible error, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not deny the defendant due process.
• Hall v. Ira Kelso
  892 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 6×
  A jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption that the acts of a person of sound mind are the product of their will violates the Due Process Clause by relieving the state of its burden to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Castro
  874 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's closing remarks, while potentially improper, did not constitute reversible error due to overwhelming evidence, and the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence was sufficient.
• United States v. Howard
  855 F.2d 832· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues the trial court erred by instructing the jury that certain income should have been reported, thereby removing the factual issue of falsity from the jury's determination.
• Scott v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1488· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for federal relief and lifting the stay of execution.
• Wells v. Murray
  831 F.2d 468· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudice, not a "strong possibility," is the standard for determining if a defendant is entitled to voir dire when events outside the trial may have biased the jury.
• United States v. Thompson
  807 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, the admission of a homemade knife was proper, the restriction of cross-examination was justified, and the voir dire was adequate.
• DIX v. Kemp
  804 F.2d 618· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a jury instruction impermissibly shifting the burden of proof on intent, in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, was not harmless error when the defendant raised an insanity defense, as intent remained a critical issue.