Pretrial Motions

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

• United States v. Bolden
  700 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a motion to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act, like any other pretrial motion, automatically triggers a period of excludable delay under the Act.
• United States v. Davis
  410 F.2d 959· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a pretrial motion to inspect grand jury testimony was not error because the motion was premature and the defendant was not prejudiced as he received the requested materials at trial.
• United States v. Anibal Sarmiento
  786 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment jury instruction and that his conditional guilty plea, despite being improperly based on an appealable pretrial matter, was not grounds to withdraw the plea.
• Trass v. Maggio
  731 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that counsel's failure to move for severance, stemming from ignorance of the law, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling the petitioner to a new trial.
• United States v. Hamilton
  931 F.2d 1046· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in marijuana buried in a washing machine on property not owned by him, and that the money laundering statute applied to domestic mailings of drug proceeds.
• United States v. Eid Hammad
  902 F.2d 1062· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the period for substitution of counsel was properly excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, ensuring the defendants received a timely trial.
• United States v. Hoslett
  998 F.2d 648· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that time designated by a judge for preparing pretrial motions is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, regardless of whether the designation was requested by a party.
• United States v. Levin
  973 F.2d 463· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues the district court improperly dismissed the indictment by conducting a pre-trial examination of the evidence, which usurped the grand jury's role and the jury's function at trial.
• United States v. Mitchell
  951 F.2d 1291· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the passenger's furtive movements provided reasonable suspicion for a Terry frisk, and that the driver waived his challenge to the warrantless car search by failing to properly raise it before the trial court.
• United States v. Vasquez
  918 F.2d 329· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the delays in the proceedings were excludable under the Speedy Trial Act and did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights.
• United States v. Morales
  875 F.2d 775· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 4×
  Delay resulting from a pretrial motion is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act regardless of whether the motion was necessary.
• United States v. Castellano
  848 F.2d 63· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the initial indictment, even if defective, tolled the Speedy Trial Act limitations period, and delays from pretrial motions were properly excluded.
• United States v. Donsky
  825 F.2d 746· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 4×
  A district court may dismiss a facially valid indictment after the government's opening statement only if the prosecution makes a clear and deliberate concession that must necessarily prevent a conviction, and only after the prosecution has had a full opportunity to correct any e
• Pius Augustine and Dorothy Augustine v. United States
  810 F.2d 991· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment.
• McCRAY v. State
  369 So. 2d 111· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-04-06 ·cited 4×
  Florida appellate court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction, holding that gruesome photographs of the victim's decomposed body were admissible as relevant evidence despite their inflammatory nature.
• Communist Party OF the U. S. A. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  332 F.2d 325· D.C. Cir.· 1964-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Tax Court erred in dismissing the petition based on a presumed lack of authority of counsel, as the authority of an attorney to act for a litigant is presumed until proven otherwise.
• Coor v. United States
  325 F.2d 1014· D.C. Cir.· 1963-12-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a hearing was required to determine the admissibility of incriminating statements made by the appellant, even without a specific request for a Mallory hearing during trial.
• United States v. Lattany
  982 F.2d 866· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 3×
  The Court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated. The Court found that the "ends of justice" continuances, including an open-ended one and its extension, were properly granted and tolled the statutory time limits
• United States v. Brewer
  947 F.2d 404· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 615, mandating witness exclusion, applies to evidentiary hearings for motions to suppress evidence. The government failed to demonstrate that the violation of this rule was harmless error.
• United States v. Broadwater
  151 F.3d 1359· 11th Cir.· 1998-08-28 ·cited 2×
  Ronald Broadwater was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and challenged his retrial on speedy trial grounds under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly excluded time periods related to pretrial motio
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Duberry
  923 F.2d 317· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial commenced within the 70-day period required by the Speedy Trial Act when voir dire began, and that delays caused by pretrial motions for release and detention were excludable, thus affirming the conviction.
• Otey v. Grammer
  869 F.2d 1137· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc, with a dissent arguing that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Tarik Ali BEY
  499 F.2d 194· 3d Cir.· 1974-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment, as the record did not support findings of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of speedy trial, or irreparable prejudice due to the government providing the wrong indictment.
• In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Crim. Procedure 3.190
  Fla.· 2026-10-01
  Motions to dismiss under Rule 3.190(d)(2) must be sworn and allege facts specifically.
• Jackson v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr. (St. Johns County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-21
  O'Shea Terrell Jackson, an inmate convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm in 2014, filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction on four grounds, all alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The district court denied
• Nelson v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2023-08-11
• MBI Servs., LLC v. Apex Distrib. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-09-19
  The court denied defendants' motion to reschedule trial and reopen discovery, finding they lacked diligence and good cause. The court granted plaintiff's motion to set a trial date.
• Okwor v. Tony
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-10-15
  The court held that a federal habeas petition challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings must be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine and for failure to state a claim.
• United States v. Brown
  285 F.3d 959· 11th Cir.· 2002-03-13
  Defendant Brown was indicted for felon in possession of a firearm and appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The Eleventh Circuit held that the government's filing requesting a trial date determination was not a q
• United States v. Occhipinti
  998 F.2d 791· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-06
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the speedy trial rights were not violated, evidence was properly admitted despite jurisdictional and warrant challenges, and sentencing calculations were correct.
• United States v. Garrido
  995 F.2d 808· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-03
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of 150 pounds of marijuana for offense level calculation for Valenzuela and Garrido, requiring resentencing. However, the court affirmed the denial of Carlos's pretrial motions and Ismael's sentencing enhanc
• United States v. Russell
  919 F.2d 795· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-26
  The court held that the district court erred in suppressing evidence of firearms, as credibility determinations and factual issues intertwined with guilt should be decided at trial, not pretrial.
• United States v. Thompson
  866 F.2d 268· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-30
  The court held that a defendant's equivocal statements do not constitute an assertion of the right to remain silent, and that time taken to rule on pretrial motions is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
• The Fla. Bar. in re Rules of Juv. Procedure
  530 So. 2d 920· Fla.· 1988-08-25
  The Florida Supreme Court approved proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure submitted by the Juvenile Rules Committee, with the exception of certain provisions concerning HRS counselor involvement in dependency cases, pending an ad hoc committee report.