Presumption Of Innocence

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

• Hernandez v. Beto
  443 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-15 ·cited 72×
  A defendant's counsel's belief that a motion for change of attire would be frivolous does not constitute a voluntary waiver of the right to object to being tried in jail clothes.
• United States v. Gordon
  253 F.2d 177· 7th Cir.· 1958-02-19 ·cited 72×
• United States v. Tutino
  883 F.2d 1125· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Larca, the denial of severance motions was not an abuse of discretion, the use of an anonymous jury was justified and properly managed, expert testimony was admissible, redacted statements were admissible under Bruton, an
• United States v. Robinson
  546 F.2d 309· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-18 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for a change of venue, in limiting cross-examination, or in its jury instructions regarding reasonable doubt, and that the destruction of FBI interview notes was harmless error. The evidence was sufficient to c
• United States v. Robinson
  857 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-04 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support all four convictions and that the denial of the motion to suppress was not erroneous.
• United States v. Dozier
  672 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the Hobbs Act is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to elected officials soliciting funds under color of official right, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Dichiarinte
  385 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1967-10-02 ·cited 70×
  The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, a remark by the trial court during instructions may have improperly framed the central issue as one of perjury rather than potential mistake, thus requiring reversal and remand.
• United States v. Meisch
  370 F.2d 768· 3d Cir.· 1966-12-30 ·cited 70×
  The court concurred in reversing the judgment and awarding a new trial, and specifically addressed the impropriety of a prosecutor stating their personal conviction of the defendant's guilt.
• Pleas Lindsey v. State
  53 Fla. 56· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 70×
  Pleas Lindsey was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter after being indicted for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment did not charge assault with a deadly weapon
• Dunn v. State
  454 So. 2d 641· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-07-19 ·cited 69×
  A defendant's confession of guilt to an eyewitness constitutes direct, not circumstantial, evidence sufficient to support a murder conviction.
• United States v. Taylor
  599 F.2d 832· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-18 ·cited 69×
  This document is an affidavit for a search warrant, not a court opinion with a holding.
• Stump v. Bennett
  398 F.2d 111· 8th Cir.· 1968-06-27 ·cited 69×
• United States v. Orrin Scott Reed
  376 F.2d 226· 7th Cir.· 1967-02-09 ·cited 69×
  The court held that testimony referring to defendant's "mug shots" taken in prison was prejudicial error that vitiated his right to be presumed innocent.
• Stanley v. State
  93 Fla. 372· Fla.· 1927-01-01 ·cited 69×
  Stanley was convicted of manslaughter after being charged with murder in the second degree. He appealed on seven grounds, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, finding the evidence sufficient and most of his alleged errors either procedurally defaulted or harmles
• Owens v. State
  65 Fla. 483· Fla.· 1913-05-28 ·cited 69×
  Thomas B. Owens was convicted of murder in the second degree for fatally shooting William E. Wester, whom he allegedly mistook for A. J. McMillan Jr., against whom he had made prior threats. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the verdict of murder in
• United States v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
  433 F.2d 174· 3d Cir.· 1970-09-23 ·cited 68×
  The dissenting judge would grant a new trial for the appellants due to improper and inflammatory cross-examination by the government attorney.
• United States v. Kojo Sababu
  891 F.2d 1308· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-21 ·cited 67×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy and Travel Act charges.
• McCRAE v. State
  510 So. 2d 874· Fla.· 1987-06-18 ·cited 66×
  James McCrae appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion following his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial of most ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reverses and remands for resenten
• United States v. Mohinder Singh
  628 F.2d 758· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a civil suit against a defendant was permissible to show witness bias, and that curtailment of cross-examination was proper when the jury had sufficient information to assess witness credibility.
• United States v. McGLAMORY
  441 F.2d 130· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 66×
  The court held that a bulldozer qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under 18 U.S.C. § 2313 and that evidence of possession of recently stolen property, along with other circumstances, can support a jury's finding of guilty knowledge.
• Aron v. United States
  382 F.2d 965· 8th Cir.· 1967-09-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for receiving stolen property, and the search warrant, while imperfectly describing the items seized, was validly executed under the circumstances.
• Pereira v. United States
  202 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1953-03-11 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the offenses were distinct, the victim was competent to testify, and the statutory language regarding causing transportation was correctly interpreted.
• Pinson v. State
  28 Fla. 735· Fla.· 1891-06-01 ·cited 65×
  John Pinson was convicted of lewdly and lasciviously cohabiting with a woman not his wife. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial, holding that the trial judge improperly invaded the jury's province by directing inferences of fact rather than limiting himself
• Bello v. State
  547 So. 2d 914· Fla.· 1989-07-06 ·cited 64×
  Carlos Bello, a death-row inmate, appealed his convictions for first-degree murder of Detective Rauft, attempted murder of Detective Ulriksen, and drug-related offenses. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions but vacated the death sentence and all other sentences, rem
• United States v. Affleck
  765 F.2d 944· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 64×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the opinion is a dissent.
• United States v. Gardner
  516 F.2d 334· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-04 ·cited 64×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that pre-arrest admissions to undercover agents do not require Miranda warnings, and that the defendant's in-custodial statement was voluntary despite refusing to sign a waiver form.
• Merrill v. United States
  338 F.2d 763· 5th Cir.· 1964-11-24 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant an opportunity to present surrebuttal testimony and in failing to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the offenses charged, requiring reversal. The court also held that a credit card and sales invoice d
• Evans v. United States
  122 F.2d 461· 10th Cir.· 1941-08-22 ·cited 64×
  The court held that there was sufficient independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings or instructions, thus affirming the conviction.
• Jonah Green v. State
  40 Fla. 474· Fla.· 1898-06-01 ·cited 64×
  This case reviews a murder conviction where the defendant argued that his confession and the jury instructions were improperly handled. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the confession admissible and the jury instructions adequate.
• United States v. Verkuilen
  690 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1982-10-06 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, the W-4 evidence was admissible, and the defendant waived his right to counsel during an in-camera discussion. Various other contentions were also found to be without merit.
• United States v. Kendall
  665 F.2d 126· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 63×
  The court held that statements made by members of an association, even if they could not be charged as co-conspirators under the Hobbs Act, were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) as statements made in furtherance of a joint venture, provided the trial court m
• State v. Wiley Jones, Jr.
  377 So. 2d 1163· Fla.· 1979-12-13 ·cited 63×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's complete omission of any instruction on the elements of robbery in a felony-murder prosecution constitutes fundamental error that is not waived by the defendant's failure to object. This decision resolved a conflict between dist
• Snipes v. State
  733 So. 2d 1000· Fla.· 1999-04-22 ·cited 62×
  David Paul Snipes was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting Markus Mueller for hire. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for imposition of life imprisonment without parole, finding that proportionality review requi
• United States v. Gabriner
  571 F.2d 48· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the true name of the passport applicant, a necessary element of the offense.
• West v. United States
  359 F.2d 50· 8th Cir.· 1966-04-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions, even if confusing, do not constitute 'plain error' if they do not affect substantial rights and the jury is presumed to follow instructions. The exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings.
• United States v. Jonikas
  197 F.2d 675· 7th Cir.· 1952-07-03 ·cited 61×
  A motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not a substitute for a direct appeal to correct mere errors of law or fact that occurred during trial, and such errors do not render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack unless they rise to the level of a constitutio
• State v. Paul
  783 So. 2d 1042· Fla.· 2001-03-29 ·cited 60×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's discretion to deny a subsequent bond application after a defendant breaches a bond condition is circumscribed by the statutory criteria in section 907.041, not by the court's inherent authority. The decision resolves a conflict
• United States v. Argentine
  814 F.2d 783· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial judge's response to the jury's factual question impermissibly removed essential elements of the wire fraud charges from the jury's consideration, constituting reversible error.
• Fidel Romero v. State
  435 So. 2d 318· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-07-13 ·cited 60×
  Romero appealed his burglary and robbery conviction, claiming error when the prosecutor commented during closing argument on his failure to call alibi witnesses he had testified about knowing. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that a prosecutor may com
• United States v. Fera
  616 F.2d 590· 1st Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the weight to be given to post-arrest statements when no genuine issue of voluntariness was raised, nor by refusing an entrapment instruction when there was no evidence of the defendant's unreadine
• United States v. White
  444 F.2d 1274· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks were not prejudicial, handwriting specimens were properly admitted, and there was sufficient evidence of interstate transportation, thus affirming the conviction.
• COX v. State
  555 So. 2d 352· Fla.· 1989-12-21 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction for first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Elledge v. Dugger
  833 F.2d 250· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 59×
• United States v. Field
  625 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 59×
  The court held that further proceedings on the admissibility of the Jacobson identification were unwarranted and it should have been excluded.
• Schuermann v. United States
  174 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1949-05-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the defendant's late submission of jury instructions, without providing copies to the prosecution, procedurally barred him from assigning error to the court's refusal to give a specific instruction regarding his failure to testify.
• Enoch Doyle v. State
  39 Fla. 155· Fla.· 1897-01-01 ·cited 58×
  In this 1897 rape case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, rejecting his arguments that certain jury instructions were erroneous and that the evidence was insufficient. The court clarified important legal principles regarding rape prosecutions, particu
• Reeves v. State
  29 Fla. 527· Fla.· 1892-01-01 ·cited 58×
  Frank Reeves was convicted of larceny of a hog in Wakulla County, Florida. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to the trial court's error in refusing a proper jury instruction on reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, despite finding the p
• United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio
  719 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-31 ·cited 57×
  The dissent argues that the en banc majority improperly inferred intent to distribute from evidence only showing intent to import, thus undermining the presumption of innocence.
• United States v. Sherlock
  962 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the judge's expulsion of the defendant's family members from the courtroom was improper because less drastic measures were not considered or attempted.
• United States v. Saundra Prescott
  581 F.2d 1343· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 56×
  Evidence of a defendant's assertion of Fourth Amendment rights to resist a warrantless search based on exigent circumstances is admissible and does not appreciably impair Fourth or Fifth Amendment policies.