United States V. Marion

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

• United States v. Rev. Alberto Mejias
  552 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-10 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the appellants' speedy trial rights were not violated by the delay between state and federal arrests, and that the search and seizure claims were without merit.
• United States v. Solomon
  686 F.2d 863· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy charge and that pre-indictment delay did not prejudice the defendant's due process rights.
• United States v. Mays
  549 F.2d 670· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 75×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in finding no actual prejudice from the pre-indictment delay, arguing that the unavailability of critical witnesses due to the delay unfairly impairs the defendants' ability to reconstruct events and defend themselves.
• United States v. Rice
  550 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on pre-indictment delay, severance, cross-examination limitations, admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) and 613(b), witness interviews, or jury requests for transcripts.
• United States v. Duke
  527 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-23 ·cited 57×
  The court held that administrative segregation does not constitute an arrest for speedy trial purposes and that a jury instruction, while potentially erroneous, was not reversible error given curative statements and the nature of the evidence.
• United States v. Smyth
  556 F.2d 1179· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 46×
  The court held that pre-indictment delay did not violate due process, FBI computer printouts were properly admitted as summaries, and the prosecutor's improper closing argument was harmless error.
• Hill v. Louie L. Wainwright
  617 F.2d 375· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the petitioner's speedy trial rights were not violated, and his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• United States v. Seymour Pollack
  534 F.2d 964· D.C. Cir.· 1976-03-31 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, and sale of unregistered securities, finding no reversible error in the speedy trial claims, indictment sufficiency, evidence, jury instructions, or Brady disclosures.
• United States v. Bridgeman
  523 F.2d 1099· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed all convictions, finding that the arguments raised by the appellants lacked substantial merit.
• United States v. Mikal Habeeb Amuny
  767 F.2d 1113· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the intrusiveness of a trespass is a factor in determining the legitimacy of a privacy expectation, not an independent test for Fourth Amendment violations.
• United States v. Juarez
  561 F.2d 65· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 42×
  The court agrees with the majority's resolution of the delay issue and the admissibility of prior crime evidence for intent, but expresses reservations about the scope of admissibility in narcotics cases.
• United States v. Barket
  530 F.2d 189· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that pre-indictment delay, even if negligent, does not violate due process unless the defendant demonstrates actual prejudice and that the delay was unreasonable, often requiring a showing of bad faith or improper motive by the government.
• United States v. Dreyer
  533 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a 29-month delay between indictment and trial, which caused severe psychological prejudice to the defendant, violated her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Revada
  574 F.2d 1047· 10th Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a dismissal based on pre-indictment delay requires a showing of actual prejudice and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage or harass the accused, and that the trial court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. King
  560 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in excluding certain bankruptcy documents, denying a pre-indictment delay claim, refusing a reliance-on-counsel jury instruction, or admitting evidence of motive.
• Morgan v. State
  415 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1982-03-18 ·cited 30×
  Floyd Morgan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for stabbing fellow inmate Joe Saylor to death in a Florida prison in 1977. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Morgan's arguments that the trial court committed reversi
• United States v. Palmer
  502 F.2d 1233· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the 22-month pre-indictment delay and subsequent post-indictment delay did not violate appellant Dillingham's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because he failed to show substantial actual prejudice.
• United States v. Lane
  561 F.2d 1075· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appellant was not deprived of a speedy trial, and affirmed his conviction.
• United States v. Butts
  524 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the dismissal of the indictment was improper because the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice from the delay in prosecution and that the delay was an intentional tactic to gain a tactical advantage.
• United States v. Lawrence Parish
  468 F.2d 1129· D.C. Cir.· 1972-09-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the seventeen-month delay between offense and trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial right or the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and that the identification evidence was admissible.
• United States v. Lynch
  499 F.2d 1011· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in determining the witness was unavailable, and therefore the admission of her prior testimony was proper.
• Archer v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York & the Attorney Gen. of the State of N.Y.
  646 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit to the claims of outrageous prosecutorial conduct, double jeopardy, or denial of speedy trial.
• United States v. Marino
  617 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-12 ·cited 21×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying severance.
• United States v. Terence Cecil Stacey
  571 F.2d 440· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was admissible, the pre-indictment delay was not prejudicial, and the indictment was not the result of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
• United States v. Brown
  511 F.2d 920· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying a hearing on pre-indictment delay, in excluding evidence related to the Black Liberation Army, in admitting expert testimony on photographic identification, or in instructing the jury regarding the failure to call witness
• United States v. Manning
  509 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial based on jury misconduct.
• United States v. Costanza
  549 F.2d 1126· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the delay between the search and indictment did not violate due process or speedy trial rights, and that the failure to identify all potential interceptees in wiretap applications did not require suppression where prejudice was not shown.
• United States v. Jewel A. Houp
  462 F.2d 1338· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that pre-indictment delay did not violate the Fifth Amendment, additional jury instructions were not error, and prior testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Duncan
  763 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by the pre-indictment delay and that the evidence seized from the vehicle was admissible under the Fourth Amendment's inventory search exception.
• United States v. Hawk
  741 F.2d 1184· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the extensive delay in bringing the defendants to trial violated their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Favors v. Eyman
  466 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the filing of a complaint does not trigger the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and a prosecutor's improper comment on a defendant's silence can be harmless error.
• United States v. Copley
  774 F.2d 728· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a detainer filed with a jail did not constitute a federal arrest for Speedy Trial Act purposes when the state continued to hold the defendant due to its own administrative error, not in response to federal charges.
• United States v. Hershel Doyle Martin
  543 F.2d 577· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant's participation in the conspiracy, and that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated.
• United States v. Smith
  487 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that pre-indictment delay does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial unless actual prejudice is shown, and the appellant failed to demonstrate such prejudice.
• United States v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc.
  770 F.2d 399· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct did not deny the defendant a fair trial and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Reed
  647 F.2d 849· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment for perjury due to preindictment delay, as the delay was investigative and the perjury charge itself was timely filed within the statute of limitations.
• Hargrove v. State
  281 So. 2d 390· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not taken into custody on the Pasco County charges in June, and therefore the speedy trial rule was not triggered at that time.
• United States v. Quinteros
  769 F.2d 968· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-07 ·cited 6×
  Social Security cards are 'identification documents' under 18 U.S.C. § 1028, and the Speedy Trial Act's thirty-day clock restarts after a complaint is dismissed and a new indictment is filed.
• United States v. George Francis Schs.
  486 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the seven-month delay between the offense and indictment did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights, nor was the sentence imposed improper.
• Nasario D. Martinez, Jr. v. Romero
  661 F.2d 143· 10th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring remand for further proceedings.
• United States v. Watson
  690 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even when a sealed indictment is unsealed after the statute of limitations has expired, dismissal is required if the defendant can show substantial actual prejudice, regardless of prosecutorial interest.
• United States v. Glist
  594 F.2d 1374· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The government's appeal from the dismissal of the conspiracy count is not barred by double jeopardy, and the dismissal for preindictment delay, due to substantial government fault and prejudice to the defendants, is affirmed.
• United States v. Lavell W. Taylor
  465 F.2d 1199· 10th Cir.· 1972-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment based on a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation, as the delay did not violate Taylor's rights under the circumstances.
• United States v. Engstrom
  965 F.2d 836· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-22
  The court held that evidence of prior bad acts related to the same scheme was admissible, and that pre-indictment delay did not violate due process without a showing of actual prejudice and purposeful government action for tactical advantage.
• United States v. Byrum
  540 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-15
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not violated because the delay did not trigger the constitutional protection until he was formally accused, and his Fifth Amendment due process rights were not violated as he failed to demonstrate substa