Rehabilitation Of Witness

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

• Carbo v. United States
  314 F.2d 718· 9th Cir.· 1963-02-13 ·cited 405×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged offenses under the Hobbs Act, as the Act requires only that commerce be affected, not that the subject of extortion be commerce itself.
• United States v. Scholle
  553 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 142×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because substantial independent evidence showed a likelihood of illicit association, and that the admission of prior consistent statements and evidence of prior bad acts was permissible under the Federal Ru
• Perry v. State
  146 Fla. 187· Fla.· 1941-02-18 ·cited 125×
  C. T. Perry was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of a man during a dispute over a lamp shade. Perry appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence and an alleged improper question by the prosecutor, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the ev
• Ryan v. State
  457 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-09-19 ·cited 108×
  Patricia Ryan was convicted of cocaine possession and weapons offenses after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to pervasive prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, finding the prosecutor's inflammatory comments about wealth, fam
• Kaminski v. State
  63 So. 2d 339· Fla.· 1952-11-14 ·cited 108×
• United States v. Gwaltney
  790 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-02 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the sentencing judge lacked statutory authority to set a parole ineligibility term longer than ten years, as this would circumvent the Congressional scheme of shared authority with the Parole Commission.
• United States v. Quinto
  582 F.2d 224· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting an IRS memorandum as a prior consistent statement because it was not made before the alleged motive to falsify arose and was therefore irrelevant for rehabilitative purposes or inadmissible as substantive evidence.
• United States v. Allsup
  566 F.2d 68· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-19 ·cited 72×
  The court held that an error in refusing to excuse a prospective juror for cause is not cured when the defense uses a peremptory challenge on that juror, especially if all peremptory challenges are exhausted, and this constitutes reversible error without a showing of prejudice.
• United States v. DiLORENZO
  429 F.2d 216· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-14 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the admission of pre-indictment statements and the judge's rulings on prior convictions and resentencing were not erroneous.
• United States v. Moreno
  649 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the past marijuana dealings of the appellant's brothers.
• Bell v. State
  491 So. 2d 537· Fla.· 1986-07-10 ·cited 46×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a prosecutor may elicit testimony from a witness on direct examination about prior inconsistent statements to mitigate the impact of expected defense attacks on credibility, characterizing this as 'anticipatory rehabilitation' rather than imper
• Coltrane v. United States
  418 F.2d 1131· D.C. Cir.· 1969-05-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the complainant's testimony in sex offense cases requires corroboration, and that while the seventh count had sufficient corroboration, the first six did not. The court also held that admitting an irrelevant and prejudicial sentence from a prior statement cons
• Carroll v. State
  497 So. 2d 253· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-12-10 ·cited 42×
  John Carroll was convicted of third-degree murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery based largely on testimony from a witness with a learning disability whose credibility was bolstered by a detective's recitation of the witness's prior consistent statement. The Florida appellate
• Felice v. The Long Island R.R. Co.
  426 F.2d 192· 2d Cir.· 1970-02-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial errors by improperly instructing the jury on the inference from absent witnesses and admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding the cause of the plaintiff's injury.
• United States v. Franzese
  392 F.2d 954· 2d Cir.· 1968-03-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of testimony explaining witnesses' prior silence due to fear was permissible, and that evidence of events after the indictment's approximate date was admissible as the conspiracy was ongoing.
• Janet v. Jordan and Janet V. Jordan as Administratrix of the Estate of John Ellison Jordan
  191 So. 2d 38· Fla.· 1966-10-12 ·cited 34×
• United States v. Lipton
  467 F.2d 1161· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in limiting cross-examination, admitting hearsay testimony, allowing prosecutor comment on failure to call witnesses, or failing to produce Jencks Act/Brady material.
• United States v. Martinez
  775 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish an attempt to murder, that the jury's verdict was not inconsistent, and that the admission of evidence of guilty pleas by prison guards was proper.
• United States v. Lombardi
  550 F.2d 827· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of prior consistent testimony was proper to rebut an attack on credibility, and the jury instruction regarding the defendant's lifestyle was within the court's discretion.
• United States ex rel. Alton Cannon v. Montanye
  486 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-19 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge argues that the writ of habeas corpus should issue because the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of the contents of a typewritten statement, and the jury instructions were insufficient to cure this error.
• 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.
• United States v. Piva
  870 F.2d 753· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that even if the jury instructions on conspiracy withdrawal were erroneous, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of withdrawal. The court also held that prior consistent statements of an informant were admissible to reb
• SUN Charm Ranch, Inc. v. The City OF Orlando
  407 So. 2d 938· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-12-02 ·cited 18×
  In this eminent domain case, Sun Charm Ranch and other landowners challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings that permitted them to call the City of Orlando's retained appraiser as their own expert witness, but prohibited them from disclosing on direct examination that the
• United States v. Rinn
  586 F.2d 113· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting tape recordings and transcripts with a cautionary instruction, denying a continuance, admitting certain statements, or admitting a defendant's statement, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Smith
  490 F.2d 789· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the defendant's prior self-serving statement during his direct examination, nor in admitting crime scene photographs or testimony about the victim's marriage.
• Clarice A. Copes v. United States
  345 F.2d 723· D.C. Cir.· 1964-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the complaining witness's prior consistent statement was not error under the special circumstances of the case, as the defense had attacked the witness's credibility and motive.
• United States v. Spagnuolo
  168 F.2d 768· 2d Cir.· 1948-06-23 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or charge to the jury.
• Arnett Alexander & Walworth Trucking Corp. v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc.
  273 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant waived the right to appeal the jury charge on contributory negligence by failing to properly object under Rule 51, and that the exclusion of witness statements was proper.
• United States v. ROY
  843 F.2d 305· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while admitting an FBI agent's opinion testimony on the truthfulness of accomplices' statements was an abuse of discretion, it was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence and the limited impact of the testimony. The court also affirmed the denial of les
• Subecz v. Curtis
  483 F.2d 263· 1st Cir.· 1973-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting the impeachment of an expert witness, nor was there material prejudice to the plaintiff.
• Abram M. Applebaum v. Am. Exp. Isbrandtsen Lines
  472 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exclusion of a witness's prior consistent statement, offered to rehabilitate his credibility after impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement, was erroneous and prejudicial.
• United States v. Gandy
  469 F.2d 1134· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence of prior consistent statements is admissible to rehabilitate a witness whose motive for testifying was questioned.
• Burgess v. State
  644 So. 2d 589· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-11-02 ·cited 12×
  Defendant was convicted of sexual battery, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and ordered a new trial based on an accumulation of three trial errors: improper admission of hearsay details under the first complaint exception, improper character evidence to bolster th
• Rolland Lindsey v. United States
  237 F.2d 893· 9th Cir.· 1956-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that admitting a recording of a sodium-pentothal interview, even for the limited purpose of rehabilitating an impeached witness, was prejudicial error because the reliability of such tests is not generally accepted in the scientific community.
• Okea Johnson v. State
  679 So. 2d 791· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting the defendant's rehabilitation on redirect examination, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Cosentino
  844 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the full text of witness cooperation agreements may be admitted during direct examination when the defense's opening statement has sufficiently attacked the witnesses' credibility, thereby making the bolstering aspects of the agreements admissible for rehabili
• Price v. State
  469 So. 2d 210· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-05-23 ·cited 10×
  The Florida appellate court reversed Price's conviction because the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement during its case-in-chief to preemptively explain away anticipated defense impeachment, rather than waiting to rehabilitate th
• United States v. Nelson
  735 F.2d 1070· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a claim of recent fabrication, nor in admitting government summary charts.
• Denny v. State
  404 So. 2d 824· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-10-13 ·cited 10×
  Denny appealed his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the admission of morgue photographs, the prosecutor's closing argument, and a tape-recorded witness statement. The appellate court found no error in any of these evidentiary rulings and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Lopez
  584 F.2d 1175· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's summation comments did not constitute plain error and that the admission of certain out-of-court declarations was not plain error. The jury instructions regarding the defendant's failure to testify were adequate.
• United States v. Legendre
  657 F.2d 238· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prosecutor's questioning and closing remarks regarding prior drug deals, while potentially improper, did not constitute reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• Warren v. State
  371 So. 2d 219· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-05-23 ·cited 8×
  Raymond Preston Warren appeals his convictions for escape, armed robbery, and carrying a concealed firearm, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted testimony about his prior arrests and charges and failed to instruct the jury that lawful custody was an essential element
• Nat'l Postal Transp. Ass'n v. Hudson
  216 F.2d 193· 8th Cir.· 1954-10-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the question of accidental death to the jury, but did err in awarding an attorney's fee under a Kansas statute that did not apply to fraternal benefit societies.
• Mosson v. Liberty Fast Freight Co., Inc.
  124 F.2d 448· 2d Cir.· 1942-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury should not have been allowed to consider the imputation of the driver's negligence to the deceased passenger, as there was insufficient evidence of the passenger's control over the driver.
• Williams v. State
  730 So. 2d 777· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-03-24 ·cited 7×
  A criminal defendant testifying in his own defense has the right to explain the nature of his prior felony convictions and whether he went to trial on those cases during direct examination to rehabilitate his credibility and diminish the adverse implications of impeachment.
• United States v. Arnold
  890 F.2d 825· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing cross-examination of an alibi witness regarding prior drug dealings for impeachment purposes, nor was the defendant unfairly prejudiced by evidence of a later marijuana transaction or the handling of
• Crawford v. State
  321 So. 2d 559· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-11-14 ·cited 6×
  References to polygraph examinations, including allusions that suggest their results, are inadmissible at trial and constitute reversible error when admitted to rehabilitate a witness's credibility, regardless of the state's intent or the strength of other evidence.
• United States v. Bolick
  917 F.2d 135· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding unrelated LSD sales by a witness was proper background evidence, and the admission of a statement corroborating testimony was also proper, despite procedural arguments.
• Markham William Dowell v. State
  516 So. 2d 271· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-10-21 ·cited 4×
  Markham Dowell appeals his convictions for armed robbery and first-degree murder in the killing of a real estate saleswoman at a model home. The court affirms, finding sufficient evidence of guilt and no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding video re
• United States v. Ramirez
  823 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under the Hobbs Act, the trial court did not err in refusing a new jury or in denying a late request to subpoena an expert witness.