Racial Prejudice

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

• United States v. Bell
  573 F.2d 1040· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 282×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire questions, admission of coconspirator statements, or jury instructions, and any errors in admitting testimony about the gun's purpose were harmless.
• United States v. Barnes
  604 F.2d 121· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-23 ·cited 205×
  The court held that the panel majority's decision to affirm convictions based on an anonymous jury, without disclosure of juror information, was a departure from established legal precedent.
• United States v. Jackson
  549 F.2d 517· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 197×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, conducting voir dire, or managing witness testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Cwach v. United States
  212 F.2d 520· 8th Cir.· 1954-04-29 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the admission of impeaching evidence regarding protection money payments was erroneous but not prejudicial, and that other assignments of error lacked merit.
• United States v. Dennis
  786 F.2d 1029· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the wiretap application was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in sentencing despite the lack of a special verdict, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported a heroin and cocaine conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Bowe
  360 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-28 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the pre-trial rulings or the trial proceedings.
• United States v. Runner
  502 F.2d 908· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-05 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court's general voir dire questions regarding racial prejudice were insufficient given the surrounding circumstances, thus denying the defendant his right to an impartial jury.
• United States v. Diggs
  522 F.2d 1310· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-03 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the agents' actions constituted an arrest without probable cause, and the subsequent search was therefore invalid.
• State v. Singletary
  549 So. 2d 996· Fla.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 41×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that for cases after this opinion, a trial judge's presence during voir dire in criminal cases cannot be waived by anyone, including defense counsel or the defendant. However, the Court affirmed Singletary's conviction because at the time of his tri
• United States v. Rosales-Lopez
  617 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentences for alien smuggling offenses were affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire, transcript denial, sentencing procedure, prosecutorial vindictiveness, lesser-included offense instructi
• Holland v. State
  916 So. 2d 750· Fla.· 2005-11-10 ·cited 34×
  Albert Holland appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions for habeas corpus after being convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing a police officer during an attempted robbery and s
• United States v. Thompson
  490 F.2d 1218· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault, as the evidence did not sufficiently dispute the elements differentiating it from assault with a dangerous weapon.
• United States v. Conester Gore
  435 F.2d 1110· 4th Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial judge's refusal to ask potential jurors on voir dire whether racial prejudice would prevent them from giving a fair verdict was reversible error, as the precedent established in Aldridge v. United States applies broadly.
• United States v. Walker
  491 F.2d 236· 9th Cir.· 1974-01-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying discovery of a co-defendant's probation report, in refusing a second preliminary hearing after indictment, or in failing to conduct specific voir dire regarding racial prejudice.
• United States v. Hasting
  739 F.2d 1269· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its voir dire questioning and that the defenses presented were not mutually antagonistic.
• United States v. Chauncey Wesley Long ELK, Jr.
  565 F.2d 1032· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-16 ·cited 28×
  The Act of February 14, 1913, did not disestablish or diminish the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, and therefore federal courts retain jurisdiction over crimes committed within its boundaries.
• United States v. Grant
  494 F.2d 120· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while it would have been better to inquire about racial prejudice, the failure to do so was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Rivers v. United States
  270 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1959-09-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gruesome photographs of the victim's dismembered body and in its jury instructions regarding the presumption of sanity.
• United States v. Carl E. Banks & Arthester McCruiston
  687 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the admissibility of prior convictions for appeal by not obtaining a definitive ruling from the trial court. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the voir dire or denying sev
• Hirabayashi v. United States
  828 F.2d 591· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that both Hirabayashi's curfew and exclusion convictions should be vacated because the government suppressed evidence showing the orders were based on racial prejudice rather than military necessity, and this suppression likely affected the Supreme Court's original
• Turner v. Bass
  753 F.2d 342· 4th Cir.· 1985-01-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the statistical evidence presented was too diffused to demonstrate a likelihood of racial prejudice affecting the particular jury, thus not entitling the defendant to have prospective jurors questioned about racial bias as a matter of due process.
• United States v. Clifford
  640 F.2d 150· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony offered to show a general climate of violence, in its voir dire regarding racial prejudice, or in denying a motion to quash the venire for underrepresentation of American Indians.
• United States v. Leftwich
  461 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in voir dire, the admission of evidence of prior car theft, the testimony of a severed co-defendant, the denial of a new trial based on alleged perjury, improper remarks by counsel, or the timing of jury instruct
• Walker v. Cash Register Auto Ins. OF Leon Cnty., Inc.
  946 So. 2d 66· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-12-22 ·cited 25×
  Gabriel Dean Walker sued Cash Register Auto Insurance under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claiming racial discrimination when denied restroom access for his young son. After losing at trial, Walker appealed an award of attorney's fees and costs to Cash Register. The appellate court affirmed f
• Slaughter v. State
  301 So. 2d 762· Fla.· 1974-09-25 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and arson of a school building, rejecting constitutional challenges to Florida's conspiracy statute and jury selection procedures, and finding no reversible error in the trial court's conduct.
• United States v. Carter
  440 F.2d 1132· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to permit defense counsel to inquire on voir dire whether prospective jurors were prejudiced against black people.
• King v. United States
  362 F.2d 968· D.C. Cir.· 1966-06-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's refusal to allow counsel to ask prospective jurors about racial prejudice was plain error affecting substantial rights, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Armand W. Robinson, Sr.
  832 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting voir dire regarding potential jurors' knowledge of attorneys' publicity, this error was harmless and did not deny the defendant a fair trial. The court also affirmed limitations on cross-examination of informants, findin
• United States v. Reed
  526 F.2d 740· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-18 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's handling of voir dire or Miranda warnings.
• United States v. Brooks
  957 F.2d 1138· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but vacated one defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Booker
  480 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's refusal to question prospective jurors about racial prejudice constituted reversible error, even with overwhelming evidence of guilt and some black jurors.
• United States v. Robinson
  466 F.2d 780· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to ask specific questions about racial prejudice during voir dire, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial. The sentence modification was also deemed erroneous.
• Reynolds v. State
  580 So. 2d 254· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-05-13 ·cited 18×
  John Reynolds, a Black man convicted of sexual battery and burglary involving a White victim, appeals his conviction and life sentence. The court reverses on the grounds that the prosecutor's pervasive and egregious injection of racial themes throughout trial—from voir dire throu
• United States v. Turner
  812 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the contempt judgment against the appellant lawyer.
• United States v. Williams
  612 F.2d 735· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to submit a voir dire question designed to detect racial prejudice, requiring reversal of the conviction. It also held that the warrantless entry into the suspect's dwelling was justified by exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Dixon
  596 F.2d 178· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1792 is sufficient without explicitly alleging knowledge or intent, as such knowledge is implied by the statute's language and the nature of the offense. The court also found the voir dire and admission of evidence to be within
• United States v. Robinson
  485 F.2d 1157· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's failure to report for induction, as construed by the district court, did not constitute a continuing offense under the Selective Service Act, and a judgment of acquittal should have been entered.
• Huggins v. State
  129 Fla. 329· Fla.· 1937-09-24 ·cited 18×
  Eula and Carrie Huggins appealed their conviction for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, raising questions about sufficiency of evidence, alleged prosecutorial misconduct involving racial appeals to the jury, and whether the evidence supported the specific
• State v. Davis
  872 So. 2d 250· Fla.· 2004-02-19 ·cited 16×
  Florida's Supreme Court reversed a capital murder conviction and death sentence, holding that trial counsel's blatant expressions of racial prejudice during jury selection—admitting he sometimes hated black people "just because they're black"—constituted ineffective assistance of
• King v. Lynaugh
  850 F.2d 1055· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 16×
  The Constitution does not require capital murder defendants to question prospective jurors about their understanding of parole law, as this falls within the trial court's discretion and is not a matter of constitutional sensitivity.
• King v. Lynaugh
  828 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Archie
  656 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the defendant received a fair trial, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Perez-Martinez
  525 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion by refusing to ask specific voir dire questions about nationality or race, as there was no indication of potential prejudice. The court also found no error in admitting evidence of a bail bond deposit or in the judge's
• Blair v. Armontrout
  976 F.2d 1130· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's systematic use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, coupled with appeals to racial prejudice in closing arguments, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial and entitled him to a new trial.
• Blair v. Armontrout
  916 F.2d 1310· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the state court's factual finding that no deal existed between the prosecutor and a key witness was supported by the record and thus presumed correct, meaning no knowing use of perjured testimony occurred. The court also held that the defendant's waiver of Mir
• Shillcutt v. Gagnon
  827 F.2d 1155· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the application of Wisconsin's evidentiary rule, preventing impeachment of a jury verdict by reference to jury deliberations, did not violate a federally protected right.
• Ross v. Ristaino
  508 F.2d 754· 1st Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's denial of the defense request to specifically interrogate prospective jurors on racial prejudice violated the defendant's due process rights.
• United States v. Alec Brown, Jr.
  767 F.2d 1078· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court's general inquiry into potential juror racial bias was sufficient, the admission of extensive hearsay testimony to establish the defendant's guilt was prejudicial and required a new trial.
• United States v. Polk
  550 F.2d 1265· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury voir dire, admission of evidence, refusal of instructions, limitation of cross-examination, or sentencing, and that the defendant failed to preserve most issues for appeal.
• United States v. Padilla
  525 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the voir dire question regarding racial prejudice was adequate, the jury instructions were sufficient, and the evidence supported the convictions.