Sufficiency Of Indictment

1,362 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 155 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. D'Antonio
  342 F.2d 667· 7th Cir.· 1965-02-09 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge has discretion to allow jury separation during deliberations, and the verdict should stand unless discretion is abused or prejudice results.
• United States v. Crummer
  151 F.2d 958· 10th Cir.· 1945-11-02 ·cited 42×
  An indictment for mail fraud is sufficient if it clearly alleges the essential elements of the scheme to defraud and the use of the mails to execute it, even if the scheme involves multiple means. A bill of particulars is the remedy for insufficient detail regarding the scheme.
• Travis v. United States
  123 F.2d 268· 10th Cir.· 1941-11-03 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the testimony given was material to a bankruptcy proceeding, thus supporting the perjury conviction.
• Clemmons v. State
  43 Fla. 200· Fla.· 1901-01-01 ·cited 42×
  John Clemmons was convicted of murder in the third degree under an indictment charging murder in the first degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment was properly drawn despite minor erasures and interlineations, that dying declarations
• Reyes v. State
  34 Fla. 181· Fla.· 1894-06-01 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for distributing obscene material, holding that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to describe the obscene material. This decision emphasizes the constitutional right of an accused to know the specific charges against
• Duncan v. State
  29 Fla. 439· Fla.· 1892-01-01 ·cited 42×
  Joseph Duncan was convicted of maliciously burning a railroad trestle/bridge belonging to the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company, endangering train passage. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment was sufficient despite not alle
• United States v. Dunnigan
  944 F.2d 178· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the defendant's trial testimony was an impermissible burden on the right to testify, and thus vacated the sentence for resentencing without the enhancement.
• United States v. Cadillac Overall Supply Co.
  568 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-28 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged a restraint on interstate commerce and that the evidence proved Cadillac's participation in a customer allocation conspiracy, which is a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
• Elmo T. Christianson and Herman Paster v. United States
  226 F.2d 646· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-01 ·cited 41×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that evidence of pre-effective date conspiracy arrangements is admissible to prove a post-effective date unlawful conspiracy, and corporate records are not protected by an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege.
• United States v. Regis Gary Tornabene
  222 F.2d 875· 3d Cir.· 1955-06-07 ·cited 41×
  An indictment charging aiding and abetting a bank officer's willful misapplication of funds is insufficient if it does not allege the essential elements of the underlying offense, including the bank officer's wrongdoing.
• Smith v. United States
  205 F.2d 768· 10th Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 41×
  A guilty plea to an indictment, even if later challenged as insufficient, precludes collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if the indictment charged an offense under the law.
• United States v. Gibson
  434 F.3d 1234· 11th Cir.· 2006-01-04 ·cited 40×·via Indictment Requirements
  The United States appealed the district court's refusal to designate Steven Gibson as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on the district court's misinterpretation of Blakely v. Washington and its progeny. The district court had concluded that Blakely prevented it from
• United States v. Adkinson
  135 F.3d 1363· 11th Cir.· 1998-02-23 ·cited 40×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed all convictions in this complex fraud case involving a real estate development scheme. The government indicted defendants on conspiracy to commit bank fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, but the conspiracy count improperly included o
• United States v. Tarvers
  833 F.2d 1068· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the CCE statute does not require the jury to unanimously agree on the identities of the five subordinates, and that the indictment for conspiracy to impede the IRS was sufficiently specific.
• United States v. Gibbs
  813 F.2d 596· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the quantity of marijuana is an essential element of an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(6) and must be alleged in the indictment to support a sentence under that provision.
• United States v. Brack
  747 F.2d 1142· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the defendant's procedural and due process arguments lacked merit.
• United States v. Trujillo
  714 F.2d 102· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments during closing argument were not improper or prejudicial, and that defense counsel cannot argue jury nullification.
• United States v. Hajecate
  683 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an indictment is sufficient if it informs the defendant of the charges and prevents double jeopardy, and that certain tax form questions can be considered investigative for the 'exculpatory no' doctrine. The court also held that interlocutory appeals from deni
• United States v. Herring
  602 F.2d 1220· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and the defendants received adequate representation and a fair trial.
• United States v. Allen
  596 F.2d 227· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence, proper jury instructions, a valid indictment, and no abuse of discretion in sentencing or the order for repayment of defense costs.
• United States v. Haas
  583 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-06 ·cited 40×
  An indictment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1503, using the statutory language, is sufficient without expressly stating 'knowledge' and 'intent' if the facts and language, taken as a whole, indicate these elements.
• United States v. Charnay
  537 F.2d 341· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the requisite intent and scienter under Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, despite the petition for rehearing claiming conflict.
• United States v. Adamo
  534 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 40×
  The mailing of vouchers to credit card companies by merchants who knew the credit card users were using stolen cards is sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to violate the mail fraud statute.
• United States v. Guthrie
  387 F.2d 569· 4th Cir.· 1967-12-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 912, part [1], does not need to expressly allege "intent to defraud" because Congress intentionally omitted this element in a statutory revision.
• United States v. Knox Coal Co.
  347 F.2d 33· 3d Cir.· 1965-06-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated a conspiracy charge and that the admission of certain co-conspirator statements, even if potentially hearsay, constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence.
• Jackson v. United States
  348 F.2d 772· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the jury instruction on intent was erroneous and that the indictment was also deficient, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Mims v. United States
  332 F.2d 944· 10th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment was legally sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the trial court did not err in denying a bill of particulars or in failing to produce an FBI report under the Jencks Act. The court also found that a juror's alleged illness did
• Hiller Arthur Hayes v. United States
  296 F.2d 657· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-21 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the indictment sufficient and the defendant's waiver of counsel valid. The court also addressed the admissibility of the defendant's statement and the scope of the Federal Kidnaping Act.
• United States v. Inciso
  292 F.2d 374· 7th Cir.· 1961-06-30 ·cited 40×
  A defendant can be charged as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) for willfully causing a labor representative to receive unlawful payments from an employer, even if the representative is not charged.
• Gottfried William Kreuter v. United States
  218 F.2d 532· 5th Cir.· 1955-01-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction for mail fraud, and the trial court did not err.
• Gideon Pelores Lyda v. United States
  279 F.2d 461· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-15 ·cited 39×
  The term 'stolen' under the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property Act includes embezzlement, not just common law larceny.
• Huff v. United States
  273 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1959-12-14 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the admission of a customs inspector's opinion testimony on the nature of the merchandise was prejudicial error requiring reversal. The court also found insufficient evidence for conviction on the second count.
• Young v. United States
  212 F.2d 236· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-08 ·cited 39×
  A conviction for perjury is valid if the indictment sufficiently states the essential facts of the offense and the evidence supports the conviction, even if the jury selection had minor irregularities or the legislative committee's purpose was mixed.
• 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. Zauber
  857 F.2d 137· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that mail and wire fraud convictions require an indictment alleging a scheme to defraud the victim of money or property, not just intangible rights. The court affirmed RICO conspiracy convictions based on kickback violations.
• United States v. Italiano
  837 F.2d 1480· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 38×
  The indictment sufficiently alleged a scheme to defraud the county of property (a cable television franchise) through bribery, thus satisfying the mail fraud statute's requirements after McNally.
• United States v. Gray
  790 F.2d 1290· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the dismissal of mail-fraud counts was improper because the indictment sufficiently alleged the two essential elements of the offense, even if proof of the second element (use of mails to execute scheme) might be challenging for legally-compelled mailings.
• United States v. Edwards
  777 F.2d 644· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding that the indictments were timely filed and properly sealed, and that the tax evasion and false filing charges were adequately pleaded.
• United States v. DiPASQUALE
  740 F.2d 1282· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the jury instructions were adequate, and the evidence supported the jury's finding of a single conspiracy to collect claimed debts by extortionate means.
• United States v. Dempsey
  733 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 38×
  A conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require the indictment to allege an overt act, and the court affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Keith
  605 F.2d 462· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority incorrectly added a new element to involuntary manslaughter by requiring gross negligence or foreseeability, rather than merely defining existing statutory language.
• United States v. Henry Thomas Leigh, M.D.
  487 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment failed to charge an offense because the statutory definition of 'distribute' excludes 'administering or dispensing,' which is what the defendant doctor was alleged to have done via prescription.
• United States v. Denmon
  483 F.2d 1093· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-14 ·cited 38×
  An indictment is legally insufficient if it fails to allege the essential elements of the offense, specifically that the defendant acted knowingly, unlawfully, and willfully.
• United States v. Reies Lopez Tijerina
  407 F.2d 349· 10th Cir.· 1969-02-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the rangers were properly covered by statute, the trial location was proper, the evidence supported the convictions, and jury instructions were adequate, affirming the defendants' convictions.
• Laughlin v. United States
  385 F.2d 287· D.C. Cir.· 1967-07-28 ·cited 38×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in its jury instructions, and that the grand jury proceedings were not sufficiently tainted to warrant dismissal of the indictment.
• Hoover v. United States
  358 F.2d 87· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the jury instructions regarding willfulness and materiality were adequate, and no prejudice resulted from submitting the issue of materiality to the jury.
• Todd v. United States
  345 F.2d 299· 10th Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to give a specific cautionary instruction regarding the informer's testimony was not reversible error due to substantial corroboration, and that the indictment's statutory citation errors did not mislead the defendant.
• 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.
• Taylor v. United States
  332 F.2d 918· 8th Cir.· 1964-06-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the information was not fatally defective for failing to name the transferee and that the defendant received adequate assistance of counsel.
• Stevens v. United States
  306 F.2d 834· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-26 ·cited 38×