Presumption Of Innocence

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

• Davis v. Singletary
  853 F. Supp. 1492· M.D. Fla.· 1994-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pretrial publicity did not rise to the level of presumed prejudice and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for individual and sequestered voir dire.
• United States v. Merlos
  984 F.2d 1239· D.C. Cir.· 1993-02-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the jury instructions equating reasonable doubt with 'strong belief' were erroneous, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Morse
  983 F.2d 851· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-05 ·cited 4×
  The court should reverse and remand the sentence because the district court improperly considered pending charges as a basis for upward departure.
• King v. Rowland
  977 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial due to a conflict of interest or in physically restraining the defendant during trial, nor did the restraints prevent effective assistance of counsel.
• Hill v. Maloney
  927 F.2d 646· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 4×
  A jury instruction that 'malice is implied from any deliberate or cruel act against another, however sudden' creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption that relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Jones v. Meyer
  899 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that shackling a defendant during trial, when justified by security concerns and less restrictive alternatives were considered, does not violate the due process clause or the presumption of innocence.
• United States v. Parker
  848 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The Bail Reform Act of 1984 is not facially unconstitutional as it does not violate a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination, presumption of innocence, or right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Beam v. Foltz
  832 F.2d 1401· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's argument, while potentially misleading, did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and that defense counsel's performance was not ineffective.
• Ronnie S. LAW v. State
  502 So. 2d 471· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and support a conviction for second-degree murder.
• Cappadona v. State
  495 So. 2d 1207· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-10-01 ·cited 4×
  Vincent Cappadona was convicted of second-degree murder in a retrial after his first murder conviction was overturned on appeal. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because jurors were exposed to newspaper articles reporting his prior conviction for the same offense,
• United States v. Jacob
  767 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the application for bail pending appeal because the district court's finding that the appellant was likely to flee was not clearly erroneous, and the appellant failed to meet the statutory burden of proof.
• Flynn v. Holbrook
  749 F.2d 961· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the continuous presence of armed, uniformed state troopers behind defendants during a lengthy trial, without a demonstrated necessity for such heightened security, violated the presumption of innocence and deprived the defendants of a fair trial.
• Dunbar v. State
  458 So. 2d 424· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's failure to call witnesses is not improper if defense counsel indicated those witnesses would testify.
• United States v. August
  745 F.2d 400· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's comment to the jury about a conspiracy existing, while error, constituted harmless error due to strong curative instructions, jury questioning, and substantial evidence of guilt.
• Brewster v. Bordenkircher
  745 F.2d 913· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for compelling the defendant to wear manacles during trial violated his due process rights, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Davis
  739 F.2d 172· 4th Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 4×
  Any error in the jury instruction regarding intoxication's effect on specific intent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the totality of the instructions and the record.
• Stewart v. Israel
  738 F.2d 889· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the state bore the burden of proving all elements of arson beyond a reasonable doubt, thus not violating the due process clause.
• United States v. Penyu Baychev Kostadinov
  721 F.2d 411· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that denial of pretrial release was proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3148, as the charged offense, even without the death penalty being sought, qualifies as a 'capital' case for bail purposes, and the defendant poses a significant flight risk.
• Young v. Callahan
  700 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that confining a defendant to the prisoner's dock without a finding of necessity for security, over objection, unconstitutionally impaired his right to a fair trial.
• United States v. Koger
  646 F.2d 1194· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the Speedy Trial Act was violated, sanctions were not appropriate, but the erroneous admission of evidence of a third party's conviction and incarceration required reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Rodriguez v. State
  372 So. 2d 1167· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-07-17 ·cited 4×
  Rodriguez appeals his conviction for uttering worthless checks, arguing the trial court improperly admitted evidence of collateral crimes and other misconduct solely to establish his criminal propensity. The appellate court agreed, finding the evidence violated the collateral cri
• Cleveland Freeman v. State
  371 So. 2d 114· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-11-08 ·cited 4×
  Cleveland Freeman was convicted of robbery based largely on eyewitness identification by a single witness. The court reversed because the trial judge refused to give a jury instruction on the state's burden to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, despite Freeman's proper req
• United States ex rel. Arthur Dorey v. State OF NEW Jersey & Ann Klein
  560 F.2d 584· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on the elements of breaking and entering and larceny was not reversible constitutional error when the defense conceded these facts at trial.
• Feinberg v. The Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  522 F.2d 1335· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional claims regarding the FDIC's suspension order and the statutory bar to judicial review were substantial enough to require a three-judge court.
• Nordone v. State
  307 So. 2d 907· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a presentence investigation is mandatory for a first felony offense, and failure to order one requires resentencing.
• United States v. Newkirk
  481 F.2d 881· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government need not prove a weapon used in a bank robbery was loaded or capable of firing to sustain a conviction for assault or putting a life in jeopardy under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d).
• United States v. Roscoe Lake
  482 F.2d 146· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the presumption of mailing and receipt of official notices were erroneous because they improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and treated a permissible inference as a mandatory presumption.
• United States v. Beedle
  463 F.2d 721· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions contained prejudicial errors regarding the burden of proof for an alibi defense and the improper reference to a defendant's alias, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Wood
  458 F.2d 1351· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a specific jury instruction, even when considered with other instructions, was prejudicial and warranted reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. COX
  439 F.2d 86· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial comments, and insufficient evidence were without merit.
• United States v. Houston
  434 F.2d 613· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the defendant's alibi defense and his failure to testify did not constitute plain error and were not prejudicial.
• THE Florida BAR v. Rose
  187 So. 2d 329· Fla.· 1966-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Bar disciplined attorney William Lamar Rose for professional misconduct on two counts: failing to diligently prosecute a client's civil case and making a false statement to a criminal defendant client while improperly retaining bond proceeds as an excessive fee. The F
• United States v. Cabell Henning Carrier, Jr.
  344 F.2d 42· 4th Cir.· 1965-03-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of intent to hinder apprehension and that the jury instructions on intent and burden of proof were adequate.
• United States v. Ivey
  310 F.2d 227· 4th Cir.· 1962-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instruction regarding the presumption of presence at an unregistered still site, while not ideal, was not reversible error given the other instructions and the evidence.
• Nixon v. United States
  309 F.2d 316· D.C. Cir.· 1962-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to give requested jury instructions regarding the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence constituted plain error.
• Zavala v. United States
  256 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing the requested jury instruction on possession and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• Headen v. Pope & Talbot
  252 F.2d 739· 3d Cir.· 1958-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding the South Carolina decree and in admitting Benton's petition solely for impeachment, requiring a new trial to determine the validity of the second marriage under Pennsylvania law.
• Shaw v. United States
  244 F.2d 930· 9th Cir.· 1957-02-14 ·cited 4×
  A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 284 will stand even if the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence contained an erroneous clause, provided the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error did not prejudice the defendant.
• Watkins v. United States
  233 F.2d 681· D.C. Cir.· 1956-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the questions asked by the Committee on Un-American Activities were pertinent to a valid legislative purpose and authorized by statute, and that the First Amendment did not protect the witness's refusal to answer.
• Johnson v. Mayo
  75 So. 2d 287· Fla.· 1954-10-26 ·cited 4×
  Johnson seeks habeas corpus relief from a life sentence imposed as a fourth-time felon. The Florida Supreme Court holds that the information charging him as a fourth offender is legally insufficient because it fails to allege the dates of the crimes and does not establish that ea
• Parker v. United States
  158 F.2d 185· D.C. Cir.· 1946-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the record, despite its imperfections, contained sufficient evidence to support a conviction for second-degree murder and did not warrant a new trial.
• Walks v. State
  123 Fla. 700· Fla.· 1936-04-11 ·cited 4×
  Vincent Walks was convicted in Dade County Criminal Court of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit larceny and assault and battery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to jury voir dire questioning, sufficiency of identificatio
• Ollinger Baggett v. State
  94 Fla. 252· Fla.· 1927-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for arson, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.
• Hardy Cox v. State
  58 Fla. 33· Fla.· 1909-06-01 ·cited 4×
  Hardy Cox was convicted of aggravated assault after being indicted for assault with intent to murder. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that the trial court erred in excluding physician testimony regarding Cox's shoulder injury, which was central to his s
• Houston v. State
  24 Fla. 356· Fla.· 1888-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court reversed a conviction for maintaining a gaming room, finding that the trial court's jury instructions may have deprived the defendant of the presumption of innocence. The case highlights the importance of properly instructing juries on the presumption of innocence and r
• Rodger Hayes v. State
  140 So. 3d 1106· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-06-18 ·cited 3×
  It is error for a trial court to compel a defense witness to appear in jail or prison clothing if the defendant objects, and this error was not harmless in this case.
• McKAY v. State
  61 So. 3d 1178· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-04-20 ·cited 3×
  Terrell McKay appeals his cocaine distribution conviction, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to strike a prospective juror for cause. The court reverses, finding that the juror's statements expressing a willingness to convict if the defendant did
• Leigh v. State
  58 So. 3d 396· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-04-13 ·cited 3×
  Philip Leigh appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reverses the summary denial of one ground involving trial counsel's failure to object to visible leg restraints and a dog in the courtro
• State v. Watson
  921 So. 2d 774· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-02-22 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's grant of postconviction relief to Eddie Watson, who claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge three allegedly biased jurors. The court held that Watson failed to establish ineffective as
• Nurse v. State
  932 So. 2d 290· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-11-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the location of a critical fingerprint was improper and not harmless error, requiring reversal.