Presumption Of Innocence

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

• Egantoff v. State
  208 So. 2d 843· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-04-05 ·cited 27×
  Egantoff was convicted of uttering forged checks and appealed on the ground that the trial judge's instructions on reasonable doubt were deficient. The appellate court affirmed all three convictions (two for forgery and one for aggravated assault whose probation was revoked based
• Matera v. Buchanan
  192 So. 2d 18· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-11-15 ·cited 27×
  Matera appeals a circuit court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging a $250,000 bail as excessive. The appellate court holds that under Florida's Constitution, the bail amount was indeed excessive and amounted to a denial of bail for a non-capital felony, reversing t
• Rivers v. State
  140 Fla. 487· Fla.· 1939-11-14 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. The court found the state's evidence insufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite contradictory statements made by the defendant.
• Jones v. State
  44 Fla. 74· Fla.· 1902-01-01 ·cited 27×
  Alex Jones was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and appealed to the Florida Supreme Court on five assignments of error. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance for a missing witness, no error in admitting post-of
• Howard v. State
  698 So. 2d 923· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-09-10 ·cited 26×
  Constance Howard was convicted of manslaughter in the death of her husband on retrial after her first conviction was reversed for jury selection errors. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed again, this time because the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on
• United States v. Villegas
  911 F.2d 623· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Rodrigo Rendon but insufficient evidence to convict Jairo Rendon of conspiracy. The court also addressed Villegas' sentence reduction request.
• United States v. Ehrlich
  902 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the embezzlement conviction, the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and the Sentencing Guidelines were properly applied.
• United States v. Torres
  845 F.2d 1165· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants and that the district court did not err in refusing to give a "missing witness" charge against the government.
• United States v. Olmstead
  832 F.2d 642· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the absence of a specific definition for 'reasonable doubt' in jury instructions is not error, as the term has a self-evident meaning. It also held that the failure to give a specific accomplice testimony instruction and the delayed disclosure of exculpatory e
• Bell v. Lynaugh
  828 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, that his second confession was voluntary and admissible, and that his other claims regarding jury selection, change of venue, publicity during voir dire, speedy trial, and prosecutorial sum
• Wilson v. McCARTHY
  770 F.2d 1482· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in shackling a defense witness, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice or the availability of less drastic alternatives.
• Rock v. Coombe
  694 F.2d 908· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions, despite containing a presumption of intent, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to repeated emphasis on the state's burden of proof and the need to determine intent from all circumstances.
• Nelson v. Scully
  672 F.2d 266· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury instruction on the presumption of intent, when viewed in the context of the entire charge which emphasized the presumption of innocence and the state's burden to prove specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, did not violate due process.
• United States v. Irwin A. Schiff
  612 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-12 ·cited 26×
  The admission of a videotape of the defendant's appearance on a talk show was unduly prejudicial and deprived the defendant of a fair trial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Clemens Rolph Johnson
  596 F.2d 842· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government retained sufficient supervision and control over federal grant funds to justify convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 641, and that the trial judge did not err in refusing to question jurors about their beliefs regarding the presumption of innocence.
• Pugh v. Rainwater
  572 F.2d 1053· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 26×
  The en banc court held that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.130(b)(4) is not facially unconstitutional for failing to include an explicit presumption against money bail for indigent defendants. The court found that the rule, which requires consideration of all relevant facto
• Hallowell v. Keve
  555 F.2d 103· 3d Cir.· 1977-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury charge improperly placed the burden of persuasion regarding provocation on the defendant, violating Mullaney v. Wilbur.
• United States v. Cosby
  529 F.2d 143· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a variance between an indictment charging joint distribution and proof showing distribution through an intermediary is not fatal if it does not affect the defendant's substantial rights. The court also held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in
• Hannigan v. State
  307 So. 2d 850· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-02-13 ·cited 26×
  In a per curiam opinion addressing a significant Fourth Amendment violation, the First District Court of Appeal reversed Kenneth Hannigan's drug possession conviction, holding that police conducted an unconstitutional warrantless search of his home at 3:00 a.m. without a valid ex
• United States v. Crane
  499 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1974-07-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a tandem trial procedure, where a single jury hears evidence against codefendants first and then hears evidence against the appellant, violates the appellant's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
• United States v. Hoker
  483 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge's excessive and biased questioning of the defendant deprived him of a fair trial.
• United States v. Jansen
  475 F.2d 312· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to impeach the defendant with a prior misdemeanor conviction after the defendant initially denied any prior convictions, and that other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• Bentley v. Crist
  469 F.2d 854· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-27 ·cited 26×
  Compelling an accused to stand trial in prison clothing may deny the presumption of innocence, and such a denial requires reversal unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Colabella
  448 F.2d 1299· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge's conduct of the voir dire did not constitute plain error, and the defendant was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
• United States v. Stone
  431 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-01 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's claims regarding insufficient evidence, the judge's questioning, or the failure to give a specific jury instruction.
• United States v. Blue
  430 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety and in the context of the entire trial, were not prejudicial to the defendant.
• United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.
  426 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy to restrain and monopolize trade, and that the trial court's instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• In re Whitney
  421 F.2d 337· 1st Cir.· 1970-01-13 ·cited 26×
  The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a right to bail pending a probation revocation hearing.
• Dixon v. United States
  295 F.2d 396· 8th Cir.· 1961-10-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions prejudicially erred by improperly commenting on the evidence and invading the province of the jury regarding the element of felonious conversion.
• Thomas W. Banks v. United States
  223 F.2d 884· 8th Cir.· 1955-06-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's tax evasion conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, including corroborated admissions and proper jury instructions, and that no reversible error occurred.
• McKENZIE v. United States
  126 F.2d 533· D.C. Cir.· 1942-03-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on the defense of alibi and by failing to explicitly instruct the jury that they must acquit if the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Halfrich v. State
  122 Fla. 375· Fla.· 1936-01-14 ·cited 26×
  Frank Halfrich was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury with a recommendation of mercy. The Florida Supreme Court addressed five appellate challenges to his conviction, including procedural irregularities, sufficiency of evidence, admission of hearsay evidence, jury
• Burkell v. State
  992 So. 2d 848· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-10-01 ·cited 25×
  Robert Burkell was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Charles Bertheas, an elderly boarder living in his home. On appeal, Burkell challenged the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that wholly circumstantial evidence was insufficient to exclude e
• Dudley v. State
  511 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-08-11 ·cited 25×
  Wendy Dudley appeals her criminal contempt conviction for failing to produce a criminal defendant, Kevin Brown, whom she was ordered to supervise on pretrial release. The court reverses, holding that while the trial court properly established a prima facie contempt case, Dudley's
• Lavado v. State
  469 So. 2d 917· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-05-28 ·cited 25×
  Appellant Lavado was convicted of armed robbery following a trial where the court refused to permit voir dire questions about the voluntary intoxication defense and denied a request to poll jurors about exposure to prejudicial radio broadcasts. The court affirmed the conviction,
• Elbert Roy Smith v. State
  463 So. 2d 542· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-02-14 ·cited 25×
  Elbert Smith was convicted of multiple serious crimes including sexual battery, armed robbery, burglary, and shooting into an occupied building. The appellate court reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred by failing to excuse for cause a
• United States v. Spilotro
  680 F.2d 612· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a pretrial restraining order under RICO is an appealable interlocutory order and that the government must present evidence at a hearing to justify its issuance, not rely solely on the indictment.
• Pannell v. United States
  320 F.2d 698· D.C. Cir.· 1963-05-16 ·cited 25×
  The court granted the appellant's application for release on bond pending appeal, fixing bail at $5000.
• United States v. Curzio
  170 F.2d 354· 3d Cir.· 1948-09-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the acquittal on the conspiracy charge was not res judicata for the substantive offenses, and that the trial court's failure to adequately define 'possession' constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Monjar
  147 F.2d 916· 3d Cir.· 1944-12-01 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, the evidence supported the guilty verdicts, and no substantial errors occurred that prejudiced the defendants.
• West v. State
  553 So. 2d 254· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-11-22 ·cited 24×
  Russell West appeals his convictions for DUI manslaughter, driving with a suspended license, and violation of probation. The court reverses the DUI manslaughter conviction due to multiple evidentiary errors including admission of irrelevant drug evidence, privileged accident inve
• United States v. LEE
  886 F.2d 998· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences for drug trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy offenses, finding no errors in search and seizure, courtroom security, severance, excluded evidence, closing arguments, or sentencing guideline applications.
• United States v. Rapp
  871 F.2d 957· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Rapp's convictions on certain counts, but that the trial court's error in responding to a jury communication without consulting counsel was harmless as to Bazarian and Renda.
• United States v. Hall
  854 F.2d 1036· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 24×
  While not strictly forbidden, judges are generally advised against defining reasonable doubt as attempts often create more confusion than clarity.
• Auriemme v. State
  501 So. 2d 41· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-12-31 ·cited 24×
  Paul Auriemme was convicted of sexual battery and burglary after a jury trial. On appeal, the court addressed whether the trial judge erred in refusing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause during voir dire, forcing the defense to use peremptory challenges on biased jurors,
• United States v. Bowman
  798 F.2d 333· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in its jury instructions on witness credibility and burden of proof, nor in admitting evidence of prior wrongful acts or prior consistent statements.
• Hicks v. State
  407 So. 2d 252· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-12-02 ·cited 24×
  The Florida appellate court held that non-consent to entry is an essential element of burglary that must be alleged and proved by the State, not treated as a matter of defense. The court reversed Hicks' burglary conviction because the information failed to allege that his entry w
• United States v. Bates Baird Witt
  648 F.2d 608· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-02 ·cited 24×
  A district court is not obligated to define "reasonable doubt" or "presumption of innocence" if the given instructions are adequate and the concepts are of common usage.
• McINERNEY v. Berman
  621 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the inference of malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant, thus not violating due process.
• United States v. Love
  597 F.2d 81· 6th Cir.· 1979-04-25 ·cited 24×
  A mistrial declared due to a juror's expressed dissent from a not guilty verdict, revealed during a poll, was based on manifest necessity, thus permitting a retrial without violating double jeopardy protections.