Sixth Amendment Right To Be Informed Of The Nature And Cause Of The Accusation

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

• United States v. Silverman
  430 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-01 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge the essential element of interstate commerce, and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that union funds were used for private benefit or with sham authorization, supporting convictions under 29 U.S.C.
• United States v. Radetsky
  535 F.2d 556· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 111×
  The court held that the submission of a bill of particulars to the jury was not prejudicial and that the issue of materiality of representations in Medicare claims should be left to the jury.
• Lauer v. United States
  320 F.2d 187· 7th Cir.· 1963-07-17 ·cited 76×
  An indictment for unlawful sale of narcotics under 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a) is insufficient to support a conviction if it fails to name the purchaser or properly excuse the omission, as the purchaser's identity is central to the offense.
• Stewart v. United States
  395 F.2d 484· 8th Cir.· 1968-05-22 ·cited 58×
  The court held that correcting a clerical error in the date of an indictment does not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments, and refusing a misleading jury instruction is not error.
• United States v. Strand
  617 F.2d 571· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions, which differed from the pretrial ruling on the required elements of proof for the scheme to defraud, did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Galloway
  976 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) is authorized by statute and does not violate constitutional rights, allowing consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing.
• United States v. Alejo Maldonado Medina
  761 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that evidence of a prior kidnapping was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and as proof of an overt act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting coconspirator statements or in its handling of pretrial publicity and jury i
• United States v. Ferguson
  758 F.2d 843· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit to the defendants' claims regarding probable cause for electronic surveillance, indictment for accessory after the fact, sentencing, RICO applicability, and fair trial.
• Stillman v. United States
  177 F.2d 607· 9th Cir.· 1949-10-27 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a typographical error in an indictment's caption does not vitiate it, and that references to the Emergency Price Control Act, as amended, and its regulations were sufficient to inform defendants of the charges, even if the indictment omitted the words 'As amen
• Sutton v. United States
  157 F.2d 661· 5th Cir.· 1946-08-28 ·cited 50×
  An information charging possession of rationed sugar in violation of specific orders is insufficient if it fails to allege facts constituting an offense and instead relies on a legal conclusion, thus violating the Sixth Amendment's requirement for clear accusation.
• United States v. Glecier
  923 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficiently specific to satisfy constitutional and federal rule requirements for a RICO conspiracy charge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Zeidman
  540 F.2d 314· 7th Cir.· 1976-08-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous and that hearsay testimony and prior similar act testimony were properly admitted.
• United States v. Dickerson
  337 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1964-09-29 ·cited 38×
  An indictment for unlawful sale of narcotics is not constitutionally defective for failing to name the purchaser, provided it otherwise sufficiently apprises the defendant of the charge.
• Lockhart v. United States
  136 F.2d 122· 6th Cir.· 1943-06-04 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while the sentence was erroneous and subject to correction, the claim of not being informed of the charges was not properly before the court on a motion to vacate sentence.
• 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. Tomasetta
  429 F.2d 978· 1st Cir.· 1970-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the indictment was fatally deficient for failing to name the victim and specify the extortionate means and location with sufficient detail, thus preventing the defendant from adequately preparing a defense.
• Junius Irving Scales v. United States
  260 F.2d 21· 4th Cir.· 1958-10-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the membership clause of the Smith Act is constitutional as applied to a knowing member of the Communist Party who intends to bring about the overthrow of the government, and that the Internal Security Act does not bar such prosecutions.
• Roberson v. United States
  237 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1956-10-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly allowing cross-examination of the defendant's character witnesses regarding prior arrests and convictions without proper safeguards, and by failing to conduct such inquiries outside the presence of the j
• United States v. Curtis
  506 F.2d 985· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to adequately apprise the defendant of the nature and character of the scheme to defraud, relying on conclusory language rather than specific facts.
• Augusta Charles Givens v. Housewright
  786 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the information filed against the petitioner was constitutionally inadequate to provide notice of a murder by torture charge, and this constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Staggs
  881 F.2d 1527· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment's Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) count was sufficient because the grand jury had identified the defendants with at least three violations, satisfying the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment notice requirement could be met by a bill of
• United States v. Contris
  592 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-09 ·cited 24×
• Hale v. United States
  149 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1945-05-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the evidence presented did not constitute a material variance or improper entrapment.
• United States v. Adams
  778 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that allowing the jury to convict based on misrepresentations about residence, when the indictment only charged misrepresentations about name, constructively amended the indictment, violating the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to be tried only on charges present
• Carter v. United States
  173 F.2d 684· 10th Cir.· 1949-03-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because it charged murder in the language of a statutory form, which implicitly included the element of malice.
• Deaver v. United States
  D.D.C.· 1946-06-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Murphy
  762 F.2d 1151· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment lacked the specificity required to apprise the defendants of the charges against them, thus violating their Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Caperell
  938 F.2d 975· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated an offense, the government did not breach the plea agreement, and the sentencing court did not violate due process.
• Gov't OF the Virgin Islands v. Joseph
  765 F.2d 394· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 14×
  A conviction for an offense not charged in the information, even if a lesser included offense under some tests, must be overturned if it requires proof of an element not present in the charged offense, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the charges.
• United States v. Debrow
  203 F.2d 699· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the name and authority of the person administering the oath are not essential elements of perjury that must be stated in the indictment.
• United States v. Santa-Manzano
  842 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the indictment charged a scheme to sell fake certificates of deposit to buyers, but the evidence proved a scheme to placate a victim with fake certificates after obtaining his money. This variance between the indictment and the proof was material and constitut
• Kladis v. Brezek
  823 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in altering the judgment to enter judgment for the defendants on the claim that the plaintiff was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, as no constitutional right requires such notification.
• Oran Murray Young v. United States
  294 F.2d 517· 10th Cir.· 1961-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the offenses charged were not capital offenses, and therefore, prosecution by information rather than indictment did not violate due process.
• Sheppard v. Rees
  909 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 8×
  A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is not subject to the harmless-error rule when it arises from the constitutionally improper use of one of multiple legal theories culminating in a general verdict.
• United States v. Seeger
  303 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1962-05-18 ·cited 7×
  An indictment for contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C.A. § 192 is defective if it fails to accurately allege the source of the subcommittee's authority to conduct the investigation.
• Fawcett v. Bablitch
  962 F.2d 617· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 6×
  A prisoner serving consecutive sentences may challenge the validity of a prior conviction that contributes to the current custody, and the state provided sufficient notice for the accused to prepare a defense.
• United States v. Am. Waste Fibers Co., Inc.
  809 F.2d 1044· 4th Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 6×
  An indictment is not rendered invalid by referring to 'divers other persons' as co-conspirators rather than naming them, as long as it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the charges and allows for a double jeopardy defense.
• Wilkerson v. Wyrick
  806 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant had sufficient notice that he could be convicted of second-degree murder, even though he was charged with first-degree murder, due to Missouri's statutory scheme and case law.
• Ridgeway v. Hutto
  474 F.2d 22· 8th Cir.· 1973-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner waived his claim of a fatal variance between the information and the proof by failing to object at trial, and that no prejudice resulted from the variance.
• Hallman v. United States
  208 F.2d 825· D.C. Cir.· 1953-07-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the indictment misled the defendant by specifying a transaction with James Fair in one count and then stating the same narcotics were involved in other counts without specifying the actual party to the transaction, thus violating the Sixth Amendment right to b
• Collier v. United States
  283 F.2d 780· 4th Cir.· 1960-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pictures mailed by the defendant were obscene under the statute and that the statute was constitutional, affirming the conviction.
• Vasquez v. United States
  229 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1956-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently described the offenses for the first count, but the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on the second count.
• Hoffmann v.Secretary
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-25
  The court denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's claims were either unexhausted, procedurally barred, or without merit under AEDPA review standards.
• Gadson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-20
  Jordan J. Gadson challenged his first-degree murder conviction by filing a federal habeas corpus petition, arguing that jury instructions on felony murder and principals constituted a constructive amendment of the indictment, that trial counsel failed to advise him of the charges
• Wilson v. Lindler
  995 F.2d 1256· 4th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's grant of the writ, finding no constitutional error regarding notice and that any error was invited or not prejudicial.