Presumption Of Innocence

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

• DIX v. Kemp
  763 F.2d 1207· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions on mitigating circumstances failed to adequately explain their nature and function, violating the Eighth Amendment, and that the jury instructions on malice and intent impermissibly shifted the burden of proof, violating the Fourteenth Am
• Gordon v. State
  449 So. 2d 1302· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-05-02 ·cited 6×
  Herbert Gordon was convicted of second degree murder in the shooting death of a woman at his cousin's apartment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of improper judicial comments on appellant's testimony an
• United States v. Vaglica
  720 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-09 ·cited 6×
  A prosecutor's argument implying the existence of evidence to refute a defendant's defense, which was supposedly barred by the rules of evidence, constitutes reversible error when it prejudices the defendant's case, especially without a curative instruction.
• Waymare Billups v. Garrison
  718 F.2d 665· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's order to shackle the defendant was an unconstitutional abuse of discretion because less intrusive remedies were available and the factual predicate for the order was mistaken.
• United States ex rel. John Kirk v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  678 F.2d 723· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The rule forbidding trial judges from inquiring as to the jury's numerical division, established in Brasfield v. United States, is an exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction over federal courts and is not binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Evans v. Britton
  639 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 6×
  A guilty plea, even if accepted, waives only pre-plea constitutional challenges and does not waive future defects if the case proceeds to trial. Furthermore, defects in a capital statute are constitutional errors of the first magnitude that cannot be cured by a showing of want of
• Labbe v. Berman
  621 F.2d 26· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by his wife's assertion of marital privilege in front of the jury, the courtroom seating arrangements, the admission of his inquest testimony, or the introduction of evidence of prior injuries to the vic
• United States v. Pine
  609 F.2d 106· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, did not deprive the appellant of his constitutional right to be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Hamilton v. State
  363 So. 2d 580· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-10-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support an adjudication of indirect criminal contempt.
• United States v. Smith
  584 F.2d 759· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's grounds for appeal were insufficient and affirmed his conviction for controlled substance offenses.
• Hardee v. Kuhlman
  581 F.2d 330· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the excessive and unnecessary use of uniformed, rotating guards in the courtroom, particularly when the defendant was not disruptive or a flight risk, prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial and violated procedural due process.
• United States v. House
  551 F.2d 756· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-10 ·cited 6×
  A trial court's erroneous reservation of a motion for acquittal at the close of the government's case is not rendered harmless by the defendant later introducing evidence, if the defendant actively sought a ruling and the court refused.
• United States ex rel. Jose R. Castro v. Regan
  525 F.2d 1157· 3d Cir.· 1975-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not violate the Mullaney v. Wilbur due process standard regarding the burden of proof for malice.
• United States v. Kelly
  500 F.2d 72· 7th Cir.· 1974-07-09 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Rosa
  493 F.2d 1191· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments on credibility were not a premature ruling, the refusal to call additional witnesses was not an abuse of discretion, and a minor jury instruction error was harmless.
• United States v. Cool
  461 F.2d 521· 7th Cir.· 1972-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that giving an accomplice instruction over defense objection was not reversible error, even when the accomplice testified for the defense and exculpated the defendants, because the testimony could still corroborate the prosecution's case and credibility issues were
• United States v. McKINNEY
  453 F.2d 1221· 9th Cir.· 1972-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish knowing involvement in smuggling and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Hall v. State
  248 So. 2d 524· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-05-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record supported the district court's findings that the deck cargo was properly secured and that the accident was caused by the winch operator's negligence, not the vessel's unseaworthiness.
• United States v. Martinez
  436 F.2d 12· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury selection plan's administration and the jury instructions did not violate the Jury Selection and Service Act or defendant's rights, and that newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. English
  409 F.2d 200· 3d Cir.· 1969-04-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to give a specific jury instruction that no presumption arises from a defendant's failure to testify.
• Roper v. United States
  403 F.2d 796· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that certain prosecutorial remarks, while improper in form, did not constitute reversible error given the context of the trial and jury instructions.
• O'Shea v. United States
  400 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by the possibility that some jurors saw him in handcuffs, as his own testimony about a prior conviction rendered the handcuff incident less significant.
• Hill v. State
  209 So. 2d 689· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a jury verdict of conviction for attempting to utter a forged instrument.
• Robertson v. United States
  364 F.2d 702· D.C. Cir.· 1966-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions, which referred to the defendant as a 'criminal' and placed a burden of 'very satisfactory' explanation on him, may have undermined the presumption of innocence, requiring reversal.
• Armstead v. United States
  347 F.2d 806· D.C. Cir.· 1965-01-28 ·cited 6×
  The court dismissed the appeal as requested by the appellant.
• Hood v. United States
  326 F.2d 33· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant violated a specific order of the District Court, due to ambiguity in the court's orders.
• United States v. Alphonso Nichols
  322 F.2d 681· 7th Cir.· 1963-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the indictment charges were sufficient and that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt.
• Ballantyne v. United States
  293 F.2d 112· 5th Cir.· 1961-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for willful evasion of income taxes was supported by ample evidence and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or rulings.
• Jones v. United States
  231 F.2d 244· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a child's spontaneous declaration, without independent evidence of injury or the corpus delicti, is insufficient to support a conviction for indecent liberties with a minor.
• United States v. Noto
  226 F.2d 953· 2d Cir.· 1955-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bail amount set by the lower court was not a clear abuse of discretion or a mistake of law.
• White v. Humphrey
  212 F.2d 503· 3d Cir.· 1954-04-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the law member's instructions, though minimal by later standards, complied with the governing court-martial law at the time of trial and did not deny the appellant due process.
• Young v. State
  69 So. 2d 761· Fla.· 1953-12-08 ·cited 6×
  Lorus Argie Young was convicted of gambling offenses (bolita/Cuba lottery operations) involving both misdemeanor and felony counts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but directed the trial court to impose a proper single sentence, holding that when misdemeanors an
• Harding v. United States
  182 F.2d 524· 4th Cir.· 1950-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that mere presence near a still, without evidence of participation or conspiracy, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for operating a still.
• Kirtsinger v. State
  99 Fla. 433· Fla.· 1930-03-04 ·cited 6×
  John Kirtsinger was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house and stealing rugs. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction despite a variance between the indictment (naming G. W. Ryder as owner) and proof (showing G. L. Ryder as actual owner), finding sufficient
• Witherspoon v. State
  76 Fla. 445· Fla.· 1918-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the trial court's jury instructions on reasonable doubt, while not identical to the defendant's requested instruction, were sufficient and that any error in refusing the requested charge was ha
• McKinney v. State
  74 Fla. 25· Fla.· 1917-07-02 ·cited 6×
  C. C. McKinney was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Dade County Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error despite procedural deficiencies in the appellate record and holding that the trial court properly admitted ev
• Avilesrosario v. State
  152 So. 3d 851· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-12-17 ·cited 5×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Avilesrosario's robbery conviction on two independent grounds: the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct a competency hearing despite clear evidence of mental deterioration, and the trial court violated his right to
• United States v. Milner
  962 F.2d 908· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial judge's explicit explanation to the jury venire of the defendant's custody status and the reasons for security measures, including a comparison to Manuel Noriega, created an unacceptable risk of prejudice and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• In re Newchurch
  807 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 5×
  A district court cannot commit a defendant to the Attorney General's custody for a mental examination solely because the defendant intends to plead insanity, without first determining that such commitment is necessary for the government to adequately prepare its case.
• Jones v. State
  495 So. 2d 856· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-10-08 ·cited 5×
  William Jones was convicted of grand theft after a jury trial, but the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction regarding the presumption arising from possession of recently stolen property. The ins
• Cherry v. Jago
  722 F.2d 1296· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that jury instructions imposing an equal burden of proof on the defendant for self-defense as the state has for proving murder constitutes a due process violation.
• Rahmings v. State
  425 So. 2d 1217· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-02-02 ·cited 5×
  Deborah Rahmings was convicted of aggravated assault after the prosecutor made inflammatory closing arguments suggesting that failure to convict would result in murder. The appellate court reversed, finding the prosecutor's remarks so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a
• Holmes v. State
  91 So. 3d 859· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-02-14 ·cited 4×
  Cameron Holmes appeals his manslaughter and concealed weapon conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of motions in limine to exclude evidence of his drug dealing activities. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that evidence of Holmes's drug dealing was inextric
• Irizarry v. Moore
  84 So. 3d 1069· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-02-03 ·cited 4×
  In this personal injury case arising from a low-impact truck accident, the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages due to the cumulative effect of egregious trial misconduct by defense counsel, while affirming the jury's finding of liability. Although no
• Cavagnaro v. State
  117 So. 3d 1111· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-01-25 ·cited 4×
  Appellants Michael F. Cavagnaro, Sr. and Jr. were convicted of molesting a lobster trap and related vessel marking violations. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed their convictions because the trial court failed to give any reasonable doubt instruction to the jury, cons
• Marcellino Joseph v. State
  983 So. 2d 781· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that denying a challenge for cause against a juror who expressed doubt about the presumption of innocence, and subsequently denying a motion for an additional peremptory challenge, constitutes reversible error.
• Cottrell v. State
  930 So. 2d 827· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The trial court erred in denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who indicated that the defendant's failure to present evidence would affect her judgment.
• Stevens v. State
  693 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-05-14 ·cited 4×
  Carol Stevens was convicted of cocaine possession after police found drugs in her car. The trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defense witness (the passenger) about unrelated pending felony charges, which violated Florida law prohibiting impeachment
• Romeo Cifuentes v. State
  674 So. 2d 743· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-01-03 ·cited 4×
  Romeo Cifuentes appeals his conviction for cocaine trafficking, arguing that a jury instruction improperly minimized the reasonable doubt standard by suggesting the state need not prove guilt with absolute certainty. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agrees and reverses, holdin
• Gilliam v. State
  645 So. 2d 27· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-10-19 ·cited 4×