Presumption Of Innocence

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

• Henderson v. United States
  218 F.2d 14· 6th Cir.· 1955-01-11 ·cited 112×
  A prosecutor's expression of personal belief in the defendant's guilt, especially when coupled with intimations that the jury has a duty to convict, constitutes reversible error.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Schiller Toto
  529 F.2d 278· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-29 ·cited 108×
  A prior conviction for petit larceny is not admissible to impeach a witness's credibility because it does not involve dishonesty or false statement (crimen falsi), and a curative instruction was insufficient to remedy the prejudice.
• Kaminski v. State
  63 So. 2d 339· Fla.· 1952-11-14 ·cited 108×
• State v. Harbaugh
  754 So. 2d 691· Fla.· 2000-03-09 ·cited 106×
  The Florida Supreme Court holds that in bifurcated felony DUI trials, the jury—not the trial judge—must determine whether the defendant has three or more prior misdemeanor DUI convictions, an essential element of the crime. This decision amends the prior Rodriguez procedure in li
• The Fla. Bar re: Standard Jury Instructions Crim. Cases
  477 So. 2d 985· Fla.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 105×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, addressing updates necessitated by legislative changes, recent case law decisions, and clarifications needed in capital sentencing, homicide, theft, drug trafficking, and se
• United States v. Thoresen
  428 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 105×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses concern over the prosecution's failure to allow transcription of grand jury proceedings, suggesting a future right to such transcripts for defendants.
• United States v. Thomas
  757 F.2d 1359· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 104×
• United States v. Glaziou
  402 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-04 ·cited 104×
  The court held that the search of the appellants was a permissible border search under the Fourth Amendment, and that the trial judge's alleged errors did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Grunewald
  233 F.2d 556· 2d Cir.· 1956-04-10 ·cited 103×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury charge on the statute of limitations was erroneous because it allowed conviction based on an implied agreement to conceal the conspiracy, which is impermissible under Krulewitch v. United States.
• Affronti v. United States
  145 F.2d 3· 8th Cir.· 1944-10-14 ·cited 101×
  The court held that the evidence presented a prima facie case for the jury, the admission of certain evidence was proper for impeachment purposes, and the jury instructions, while not perfect, did not constitute reversible error.
• North v. State
  65 So. 2d 77· Fla.· 1953-10-21 ·cited 100×
  North was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Mrs. Betty Albritton under mysterious circumstances. He appeals arguing various trial errors, but the Florida Supreme Court affirms, finding no reversible error where the circumstantial evidence established guilt beyond r
• State v. Harris
  356 So. 2d 315· Fla.· 1978-02-23 ·cited 99×
  The court held that while the legislature can create a substantive offense for felony petit larceny, prior convictions must be proven in a separate proceeding after conviction to avoid violating due process and equal protection.
• United States v. Hernandez-Palacios
  838 F.2d 1346· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and the Travel Act, but sufficient for possession and importation of marijuana.
• United States v. Brandt
  196 F.2d 653· 2d Cir.· 1952-05-09 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of the trial judge's conduct and charge to the jury deprived the defendants of a fair trial.
• Stoppelli v. United States
  183 F.2d 391· 9th Cir.· 1950-06-26 ·cited 98×
  The court held that fingerprint evidence, even if circumstantial, was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to infer possession of heroin, and that any alleged witness misconduct did not substantially affect the trial's fairness.
• United States v. Arteaga-Limones
  529 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 96×
• McMILLEN v. United States
  386 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the "plain error" standard applied due to the jury instructions on witness presumption and the lack of cautionary instructions for accomplice testimony, warranting reversal for one appellant but not the other due to differing levels of corroborating evidence.
• Morei v. United States
  127 F.2d 827· 6th Cir.· 1942-05-14 ·cited 96×
  The court held that Dr. Platt's conviction for aiding and abetting or being an accessory before the fact in narcotics offenses must be reversed due to insufficient evidence and improper government conduct. The court also found that Morei's defense of entrapment should have been c
• Leon v. State
  396 So. 2d 203· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-02-24 ·cited 94×
  Antonio Leon was convicted of burglary and grand theft after a trial in which a juror who had previously been burglarized was seated despite Leon's challenge for cause. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in denying the challeng
• United States v. Dennis
  786 F.2d 1029· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the wiretap application was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in sentencing despite the lack of a special verdict, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported a heroin and cocaine conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Splain
  545 F.2d 1131· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 92×
  The court held that a prosecutor's improper comments during closing argument were not reversible error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the comments did not prejudice the defendant.
• August Tom Rizzo v. United States
  304 F.2d 810· 8th Cir.· 1962-06-26 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for separate trials, continuances, or mistrials based on pretrial publicity, and that jurors are presumed to follow instructions regarding media consumption.
• State v. Narcisco Rodriguez
  575 So. 2d 1262· Fla.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 88×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether a charging document for felony DUI must specifically allege three or more prior DUI convictions. The Court held that prior convictions are essential elements that must be alleged in the chargi
• Curfew Davis v. Kemp
  752 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the distinction between non-participation and mens rea defenses is flawed and that a Sandstrom error cannot be harmless when intent is an element of the crime.
• United States v. Chiantese
  560 F.2d 1244· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the "so unless the contrary appears from the evidence" clause in jury instructions, as used in Mann v. United States, impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant and is reversible error, though not automatically so.
• United States v. Bufalino
  285 F.2d 408· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-28 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the prosecution failed to prove illegality of the gathering, and thus defendants had no duty to explain their actions.
• Mahlon Hulst v. State
  123 Fla. 315· Fla.· 1936-03-23 ·cited 88×
  Mahlon Hulst was convicted of manslaughter in the death of an 11-year-old boy struck by his truck. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial due to errors in jury instructions regarding reasonable doubt and the defendant's possible guilt.
• Disney v. State
  72 Fla. 492· Fla.· 1916-12-19 ·cited 87×
  James Disney, a police officer, was convicted of manslaughter for shooting and killing Daniel Carlton, a sheriff, following an altercation. Disney appealed, claiming the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding self-defense, heat of passion, and the aggressor in the d
• Gates v. Zant
  863 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and that his other claims regarding the jury venire, videotaped confession, and jury instructions lacked merit.
• Pendergrast v. United States
  416 F.2d 776· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-31 ·cited 86×
  The court held that while the trial court's ruling on the defendant's right to testify at a suppression hearing without incriminating himself at trial was erroneous under later Supreme Court decisions, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant's trial
• Gomila v. United States
  146 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1944-12-28 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the trial court's errors, including an incorrect charge on the presumption of innocence and the judge's undue participation in the trial, cumulatively prejudiced the defendants and required reversal.
• Bloch v. United States
  221 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1955-04-11 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on the element of 'willfulness' for tax evasion were erroneous and constituted plain error, requiring reversal.
• Hernandez v. State
  4 So. 3d 642· Fla.· 2009-01-30 ·cited 83×
  Michael Hernandez was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary in the death of Ruth Everett during a robbery gone wrong. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence, rejecting multiple appellate challenges including claims regarding jury impartiality, wit
• Petschl v. United States
  369 F.2d 769· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-14 ·cited 82×
  The court held that a defendant's conviction for using the mail to deliver a threat is supported by sufficient evidence, and errors not properly raised in the trial court are not subject to review on appeal unless they constitute plain error.
• United States v. Lawson
  507 F.2d 433· 7th Cir.· 1974-11-26 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a mistrial after inadmissible evidence was displayed, nor in refusing to define reasonable doubt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Adcock
  558 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-14 ·cited 80×
  The dissenting judge believes certain testimony was improperly admitted due to lack of probative value and unfair prejudice, while other testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Samuel
  431 F.2d 610· 4th Cir.· 1970-09-15 ·cited 80×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior narcotics offenses for intent and motive was permissible, and that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding an informant's report was harmless error. However, the court remanded for further proceedings regarding the defendant be
• Marson v. United States
  203 F.2d 904· 6th Cir.· 1953-04-17 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by prejudicially questioning the jury about alleged criminal activities and by failing to interrogate the jury about a prejudicial newspaper article.
• Hall v. State
  78 Fla. 420· Fla.· 1919-11-13 ·cited 79×
  Marion Hall was convicted of murdering Arnold Mitchell during a dispute at a dance in Walton County, Florida, and sentenced to death. Hall appealed on numerous grounds including claims of intoxication-induced insanity and alleged errors in jury instructions, but the Florida Supre
• Nixon v. Singletary
  758 So. 2d 618· Fla.· 2000-01-27 ·cited 78×
  Joe Elton Nixon, a death row inmate, challenged his conviction for first-degree murder, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by admitting his guilt during opening and closing arguments without his consent. The Florida Supreme Court held that such guilt admis
• United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez
  547 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing improper cross-examination of character witnesses and by displaying hostility towards defense counsel, which collectively deprived the appellants of a fair trial.
• Robles v. State
  188 So. 2d 789· Fla.· 1966-07-08 ·cited 78×
  Alfonso Robles was convicted of first-degree murder under Florida's felony-murder rule for stabbing to death Jean Sterne's daughter during a burglary of the victim's apartment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to
• Smith v. United States
  331 F.2d 784· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-20 ·cited 78×
• Keene v. United States
  266 F.2d 378· 10th Cir.· 1959-04-08 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the presumption of regularity applies to draft board proceedings, and a registrant's claim for conscientious objector status made after an induction notice is subject to regulations that may preclude reopening the classification absent a change in status beyon
• Mason v. Balkcom
  669 F.2d 222· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 76×
  The jury instruction impermissibly shifted the burden of proof of intent to the petitioner, and this error has not been shown to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Campbell v. Anderson McGRUDER
  580 F.2d 521· D.C. Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the District Court's order was clearly erroneous because it was based on speculation and conjecture regarding the new jail's conditions and capacity, rather than substantial evidence.
• Krzeminski v. Perini
  614 F.2d 121· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 75×
  The court held that while jury instructions contained constitutional errors, they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the totality of the circumstances and the defendant's admissions.
• Williams v. United States
  328 F.2d 256· 8th Cir.· 1964-02-20 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find guilt, and that the jury instructions, while not perfect, did not constitute plain error or prejudice the defendant.
• Carratelli v. State
  832 So. 2d 850· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-11-20 ·cited 73×
  Robert Carratelli was convicted of six counts of vehicular homicide after running a red light at high speed and killing six passengers. On appeal, the court found the trial judge abused discretion in denying cause challenges to three jurors but held the error was not preserved fo
• United States v. Jessup
  757 F.2d 378· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption for serious drug offenses does not violate due process and that Congress acted within its constitutional limits in creating it.