Pretrial Motions

88 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Janik
  723 F.2d 537· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-09 ·cited 106×
  The court held that certain delays in scheduling and ruling on a suppression motion were not excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, thus violating the seventy-day limit between arraignment and trial.
• United States v. Stafford
  697 F.2d 1368· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 106×
  The court held that delays resulting from pretrial motions are automatically excluded from the Speedy Trial Act's 70-day limit, regardless of whether they actually caused trial delay.
• 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.
• United States v. Bridwell
  583 F.2d 1135· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-11 ·cited 88×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's comment on a defendant's refusal to waive Miranda rights was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that other alleged errors, including issues with search warrants, evidence admissibility, prosecutor a
• Amendments TO THE Florida Rules OF Criminal Procedure
  685 So. 2d 1253· Fla.· 1996-11-27 ·cited 68×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted comprehensive amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, including modifications to rules governing pleading captions, pleas, defendant presence, pretrial motions, competence proceedings, insanity defenses, sentencing in capital cases, an
• United States v. Bufalino
  683 F.2d 639· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-15 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, and evidentiary and jury instruction challenges were without merit.
• United States v. Rogers
  921 F.2d 975· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 63×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are not required for routine post-conviction presentence interviews, and that delays caused by speedy trial motions are excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Campbell
  706 F.2d 1138· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the 266-day delay from indictment to trial did not violate the Speedy Trial Act because various pretrial motions and the joinder with co-defendants justified time exclusions.
• United States v. Tunnessen
  763 F.2d 74· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a district court must indicate at the time it grants a continuance that it is doing so based on the "ends of justice" to comply with the Speedy Trial Act's procedural requirements.
• United States v. Jodoin
  672 F.2d 232· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the evidence was admissible, the trial was timely under the Speedy Trial Act, and the jury instructions were proper, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. NEW Buffalo Amusement Corp.
  600 F.2d 368· 2d Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, and a slight variance between the indictment and proof at trial was immaterial and did not cause prejudice.
• United States v. Cosmo "Gus" Cangiano and Elana Marie Isola
  491 F.2d 906· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-11 ·cited 53×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for a new trial due to improper jury instructions regarding community standards for obscenity.
• United States v. Thomas
  788 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-17 ·cited 51×
  The court held that procedural errors before the grand jury do not require reversal of a conviction after a petit jury trial, and that the Speedy Trial Act's time limits were not violated for the superseding indictment charges.
• United States v. Mentz
  840 F.2d 315· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 49×
  The court held that although the jury instruction regarding FDIC coverage was erroneous, the error was harmless because the defense did not genuinely contest coverage and focused on alibi.
• United States v. Coppola
  526 F.2d 764· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 48×
  The court held that hearsay statements of a co-defendant, when adopted by the defendant, are admissible as party admissions, and that evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove motive.
• United States v. Duncan
  850 F.2d 1104· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court was not alerted to the jury unanimity issue regarding specific false items, and it was not plain error not to instruct the jury on this specific point.
• United States v. Ditommaso
  817 F.2d 201· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to import heroin and currency reporting violations, finding no merit in claims of speedy trial denial, prejudicial evidence, extradition violations, improper identification, or illegal sentencing.
• United States v. Henderson
  746 F.2d 619· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 41×
  The court's prior opinion allows trial courts to delay pretrial motions indefinitely, effectively circumventing the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Anello
  765 F.2d 253· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions to dismiss for Speedy Trial Act violations, denying mistrials for alleged juror misconduct, admitting evidence, or finding sufficient evidence for conviction.
• United States v. McGRATH
  622 F.2d 36· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-19 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, holding that the appellants' speedy trial rights were not violated, the search warrants were valid, and the wiretap evidence was admissible. The court also found that the appellant waived his objection to the playing of a composi
• United States v. O'Bryant
  775 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the defendant's Speedy Trial Act rights were not violated, the warrantless search of the briefcase was permissible under the inventory search exception, and the trial court properly refused the requested jury instructions and adequately polled the jury.
• United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc.
  871 F.2d 902· 10th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 33×
  The court held that count one of the indictment was constitutionally and procedurally defective due to vagueness, failing to provide sufficient detail to protect the appellants' due process rights.
• United States v. Griffin
  765 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to raise a multiplicity claim on direct appeal bars its consideration in a § 2255 petition unless good cause is shown, and that Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2) requires such claims based on the indictment to be raised before trial.
• The United States v. Hilmer Burdette Sandini
  888 F.2d 300· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pretrial motion for severance, and any prejudice from the co-defendant's attorney's summation did not rise to the level of plain error.
• United States v. M.K. Fadel
  844 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment, as the undercover officer's testimony was sufficient to create a factual question regarding the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime, thus requiring a trial.
• United States v. Broce
  781 F.2d 792· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the second indictment charging a Sherman Act violation for bid rigging on a highway project violated the double jeopardy clause.
• United States v. Johnpoll
  739 F.2d 702· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of Swiss deposition testimony was proper, and minor deviations in responding to jury inquiries were harmless errors. However, the court found merit in the defendant's argument regarding multiplicitous counts.
• United States v. Clay Thomas Atkins
  698 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the photographic identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, and the evidence was sufficient to prove intimidation.
• United States v. Davenport
  935 F.2d 1223· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated because various delays, including interlocutory appeals and motions filed by codefendants, were properly excluded from the seventy-day calculation under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Robertson
  810 F.2d 254· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a District of Columbia arrest does not trigger the Speedy Trial Act's 30-day indictment limit, and that delays related to transportation and overdue pretrial motion responses are excludable under the Act's tolling provisions.
• United States v. Jorge
  865 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, finding probable cause for the arrest and lawful seizure of the bag, and that jury instructions and Speedy Trial Act calculations were proper.
• United States v. Wilson
  835 F.2d 1440· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated because excludable time for pretrial motions and motion preparation exceeded the statutory limit, and that wiretap evidence was obtained reasonably, satisfying the minimization requirement.
• United States v. Prantil
  764 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to recuse the prosecutor, who was a material witness, and that the prosecutor's summation contained prejudicial misconduct. The court also held that the defendant's statements regarding an
• In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
  26 So. 3d 534· Fla.· 2009-11-19 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure submitted by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee in its triennial report, with modifications to rules addressing pretrial release, speedy trial, motions for rehearing, and other pr
• United States v. Barletta
  644 F.2d 50· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-17 ·cited 20×
  A district court must rule on a pretrial evidentiary motion if the issue is capable of determination without trial of the general issue and deferral would adversely affect the government's right to appeal.
• United States v. Walker
  960 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the weight of liquid waste containing methamphetamine should be included in calculating offense levels under the Sentencing Guidelines, and that delays from pre-trial motions toll the Speedy Trial Act clock indefinitely. It also affirmed that methamphetamine r
• The United States v. Felton
  811 F.2d 190· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 19×
  The majority's interpretation of the Speedy Trial Act, particularly section 3161(h)(1)(F), allows for excessive delays in bringing cases to trial by permitting indefinite postponements of pre-trial motions.
• United States v. Mann
  884 F.2d 532· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for mail fraud convictions but insufficient for wire fraud. It also reversed convictions for willful failure to file due to an erroneous jury instruction on the good faith defense.
• United States v. Green
  847 F.2d 622· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 18×
  A notice of appeal filed after a conditional guilty plea but before sentencing is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction if the intent to appeal is clear and neither party is prejudiced.
• United States v. Green
  779 F.2d 1313· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for conspiracy and possession of piperidine were valid, affirming the lower court's decisions on jury instructions, Speedy Trial Act exclusions, and the denial of a new trial.
• United States v. Echols
  577 F.2d 308· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the seizure of films as evidence in a criminal prosecution, pursuant to a warrant, does not violate the First Amendment or due process, even with a delay, if a prompt judicial determination is available upon request and the seizure is not for censorship purpos
• State v. Kennon
  652 So. 2d 396· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-02-10 ·cited 16×
  The State appeals the trial court's order suppressing evidence of marijuana and cocaine found hidden under a vehicle tire. The appellate court reverses, holding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in drugs she placed in a public area and abandoned, and the
• United States v. Garcia
  778 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the time between the filing of a James motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, even if a magistrate defers the motion to the district court.
• Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
  794 So. 2d 457· Fla.· 2000-11-02 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court approves proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure submitted by The Florida Bar's Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, with selective modifications addressing criminal trial procedure, post-conviction relief, sentencing, counsel repre
• United States v. Winfrey
  900 F.2d 1225· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines' 100:1 ratio of cocaine to cocaine base is constitutional, speedy trial rights were not violated, drug quantities were properly attributed, and evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Wirsing
  867 F.2d 1227· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that time consumed by pretrial motions, including those for detention review, is excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's seventy-day calculation, and that the mootness of a motion does not retroactively render the time it was pending non-excludable.
• United States v. Donald Pelfrey (86-3166)
  822 F.2d 628· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant charged with conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not need to have committed an overt act to be convicted, and that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated.
• United States v. Skeens
  494 F.2d 1050· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive and that the convictions should be upheld.
• United States v. Richard E. Schuster, M.D.
  777 F.2d 264· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions were not subject to reversal due to various alleged errors, including Speedy Trial Act violations, evidentiary rulings, and prosecutorial misconduct.
• Gubarev v. Buzzfeed, Inc.
  119 La. 1· S.D. Fla.· 2019-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The Court held that the presumption of public access to judicial records has attached to all sealed filings and has not been rebutted, with limited exceptions for specific non-party proprietary information.