Vagueness Of Indictment

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

• United States v. Helmel
  769 F.2d 1306· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the admission of the ledger was proper for Stowe, Helmel, and Glick under the coconspirator rule, but reversed Paulsen's conviction due to insufficient independent evidence to support the admission of the ledger against him. The court also found that Stowe and
• United States v. Stefan
  784 F.2d 1093· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the district court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury regarding civil banking statute violations, that the prosecutor's remarks were improper but not prejudicial, that the RICO
• United States v. Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.
  550 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' numerous assignments of error regarding the indictment's sufficiency, grand jury proceedings, disclosure of evidence, witness immunity, continuance requests, and federal jurisdiction over false claims submitt
• United States v. Largent
  545 F.2d 1039· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendants' Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not violated, the statutes under which they were convicted are constitutional, and the admission of prior similar acts evidence was proper.
• 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. Lane
  765 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance, nor was the indictment insufficient, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States.
• United States v. Bi-Co Pavers, Inc.
  741 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury instructions, evidence admission, or sufficiency of evidence, and that the defendant's arguments for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or Brady violations were without merit.
• Leary v. United States
  544 F.2d 1266· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-10 ·cited 12×
  A defendant who falsely declares he has no contraband upon reentry into the United States cannot claim his Fifth Amendment rights were violated, as he did not invoke the privilege and his false statement is not incriminatory.
• United States v. Isidore S. Rosen
  353 F.2d 523· 2d Cir.· 1965-11-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the question asked before the grand jury was not so vague as to misinform the defendant about the charge, and other arguments lacked merit.
• United States v. Kerkman
  866 F.2d 877· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's mail fraud and conspiracy convictions were not based on the "intangible rights" theory prohibited by McNally, as the scheme deprived the state of economically material information and control over its money.
• United States v. Nichols
  421 F.2d 570· 8th Cir.· 1970-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's admissions prior to the crime were admissible without corroboration and that the evidence was sufficient to prove a violation of the Travel Act.
• O'Connor v. United States
  240 F.2d 404· D.C. Cir.· 1956-12-20 ·cited 4×
  A conviction for contempt of Congress must be set aside if the question asked was so imprecise and ambiguous that the witness's refusal to answer cannot be considered a crime.
• Isom Wilson v. State
  78 Fla. 41· Fla.· 1919-06-26 ·cited 2×
  This case addresses whether an indictment is invalid if it omits the name of the county where the grand jury convened. The court held that such an omission is not fatal, especially when the indictment otherwise specifies the county and a statute exists to cure minor defects.
• United States v. Raftery
  563 F.2d 965· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-25
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior association with drug smugglers and dealers, nor was the indictment unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Martin
  292 F.2d 702· 4th Cir.· 1961-06-23
  A defendant cannot collaterally attack an indictment under Rule 35 for vagueness if the indictment generally discloses the nature of the offense and the defendant failed to raise the issue directly.