-
344 F.2d 317·
5th Cir.·
1965-03-25
·cited 82×
The court held that striking surplusage from an indictment under Rule 7(d) is permissible, but admitting evidence obtained from an illegal arrest and search requires reversal.
-
761 F.2d 1459·
11th Cir.·
1985-05-30
·cited 78×
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the ex parte conference with a juror did not violate due process or Rule 43, the double jeopardy claim was meritless, indictment amendments were permissible variances, state wiretap evidence was admissible, and challenged evidence
-
850 F.2d 1557·
11th Cir.·
1988-08-04
·cited 61×
The court held that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment and that inconsistent verdicts in a conspiracy case are permissible.
-
601 F.2d 1279·
5th Cir.·
1979-09-04
·cited 54×
The court held that the district judge's violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30, by requiring objections to jury instructions to be made in the jury's presence, constituted reversible error when it led to a constructive amendment of the indictment regarding an essenti
-
688 F.2d 652·
9th Cir.·
1982-09-21
·cited 49×
The court held that a theft victim's search of a suspect's property, even with prior police contact and consent, was not a government search subject to Fourth Amendment requirements because the victim acted on his own initiative to recover his property and gained access via conse
-
809 F.2d 1281·
7th Cir.·
1987-01-09
·cited 45×
The court affirmed convictions for mail fraud, Hobbs Act, RICO, and tax evasion, finding sufficient evidence and proper joinder of counts. The court also held that a prior decision regarding sentencing councils should not be applied retroactively.
-
948 F.2d 370·
7th Cir.·
1991-11-21
·cited 34×
The court held that the police's forced entry complied with the knock-and-announce statute, and that the defendant's argument regarding constructive amendment of the indictment was not preserved for appeal.
-
718 F.2d 1511·
10th Cir.·
1983-09-30
·cited 28×
The court held that the indictment was not constructively amended by jury instructions on a depletion of assets theory for Hobbs Act violations, and that the mailings of county warrants were sufficient to support mail fraud convictions.
-
524 F.2d 644·
6th Cir.·
1975-10-24
·cited 26×
The court held that an amendment to a misdemeanor indictment by a bill of particulars, even if it corrects a material date, does not require automatic reversal if the defendant had prior notice and suffered no actual prejudice.
-
289 F.2d 904·
10th Cir.·
1961-04-25
·cited 26×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for transporting and disposing of stolen cattle, and that evidence related to mail and wire fraud charges was admissible to prove intent for the other charges. Concurrent sentences on all counts meant the judg
-
858 F.2d 94·
2d Cir.·
1988-09-21
·cited 24×
The court held that admitting evidence of a loan not specified in the indictment, without a limiting instruction, impermissibly broadened the charges against the defendant, constituting a constructive amendment of the indictment.
-
545 F.2d 71·
8th Cir.·
1976-12-01
·cited 22×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the rented automobile, nor in denying the motion for acquittal based on variance or insufficiency of evidence.
-
534 F.2d 1097·
3d Cir.·
1976-04-23
·cited 20×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the perjury counts and suppressing evidence, as the affidavit sufficiently alleged an impact on interstate commerce and the defendants' testimony was not protected by Bronston v. United States.
-
933 F.2d 641·
8th Cir.·
1991-05-15
·cited 19×
The court held that the jury instruction's variance from the indictment was permissible as it narrowed the charge, the statements made were not in custodial interrogation, the evidence was sufficient for a money laundering conviction, and the sentencing enhancement was appropriat
-
626 F.2d 264·
3d Cir.·
1980-06-30
·cited 14×
The court held that deleting language from an indictment to conform to the prosecution's election of theories does not constitute an amendment requiring grand jury approval if the remaining language still states an offense and does not broaden the charges.
-
412 F.2d 625·
3d Cir.·
1969-06-18
·cited 12×
An indictment amended in matter of substance, changing the gravamen of the offense, is invalid without action by the grand jury that returned it, even if the defendant consents.
-
513 F.2d 227·
7th Cir.·
1975-03-31
·cited 8×
The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, grand jury minutes were not discoverable, the admission of a statement was proper, a joint venture instruction was permissible, and sentences within statutory limits are not subject to re
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-02
The court held that the petitioner's objections were overruled and his Section 2255 motion was denied because his claims regarding jurisdiction, plea validity, and sentencing enhancements lacked merit.