Variance Between Indictment And Proof

750 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 59 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Grier
  866 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel production of pen register materials, as the defendant had ample opportunity for cross-examination and the denial was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Friedman
  593 F.2d 109· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-15 ·cited 108×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidence supported conspiracy and importation charges, documentary evidence was admissible, and disclosure requirements were met.
• United States v. Claret Echeverry
  698 F.2d 375· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the duration of the conspiracy was prejudicially ambiguous, tainting the conspiracy conviction and potentially the substantive counts.
• NYE & Nissen v. United States
  168 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1948-06-21 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and false claims, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Ibrahim Abushi
  682 F.2d 1289· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction and that the joinder and severance rulings were not an abuse of discretion. The entrapment defense was also rejected.
• United States v. Riccobene
  709 F.2d 214· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of a RICO enterprise and that the appellants knowingly agreed to participate in it through a pattern of racketeering activity. The convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Anderson
  532 F.2d 1218· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 105×
  The dissenting judge would reverse convictions because the government proved a different offense than the one charged by the grand jury.
• United States v. Read
  658 F.2d 1225· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-09 ·cited 104×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on withdrawal from a conspiracy were erroneous because they improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the defendant, rather than requiring the government to disprove withdrawal beyond a reasonable doubt. However, withdra
• United States v. Percival
  756 F.2d 600· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 103×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction, that severance was not required, that there was sufficient evidence to convict Carolyn Percival, and that William Percival's Fourth Amendment claim was waived.
• United States v. Leviton
  193 F.2d 848· 2d Cir.· 1951-11-30 ·cited 100×
  A confession obtained during an unnecessary and unreasonable delay in arraignment, in violation of the McNabb rule, is inadmissible. Furthermore, prejudicial publicity and judicial misconduct can deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Metz
  608 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-10 ·cited 97×
• United States v. Wayman
  510 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-03 ·cited 97×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for new trial based on juror bias, severance, mistrial, dismissal, acquittal, or in refusing certain jury charges, and that no double jeopardy violation occurred.
• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Bruun
  809 F.2d 397· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 95×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions for interstate transportation of stolen securities, but affirmed convictions for conspiracy and misapplication of bank funds. The court also found no reversible error in the denial of severance motions or
• United States v. Davis
  679 F.2d 845· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the indictment did not suffer a constructive amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. Daniel "Danny Blue Eyes"
  583 F.2d 748· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-08 ·cited 94×
  The Fifth Circuit, in a concurring opinion, argues that the "slight evidence" standard for appellate review of conspiracy convictions is incorrect and should be replaced by the "substantial evidence" standard. This standard, consistent with Supreme Court precedent and sound polic
• Nassif v. United States
  370 F.2d 147· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-06 ·cited 94×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to implicate Nassif in the conspiracy to steal from interstate commerce and affirmed the convictions of both Nassif and Schmadebeck.
• Cwach v. United States
  212 F.2d 520· 8th Cir.· 1954-04-29 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the admission of impeaching evidence regarding protection money payments was erroneous but not prejudicial, and that other assignments of error lacked merit.
• United States v. Roman
  728 F.2d 846· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-15 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and did not violate the defendant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to strike witness testimony.
• Monroe v. United States
  234 F.2d 49· D.C. Cir.· 1956-04-30 ·cited 92×
  The court held that a variance between the conspiracy charge and the proof did not affect the substantial rights of the accused, recorded conversations were admissible, and joint trials of conspiracy and substantive bribery charges were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Starrett
  55 F.3d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1995-06-27 ·cited 91×
  Six members of the Outlaw Motorcycle Club were convicted of RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), with four also convicted of substantive RICO violations under § 1962(c), and one convicted of narcotics offenses. The appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds
• United States v. Noble C. Beasley
  519 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 90×
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy and tax evasion but reversed the sentence for filing a fraudulent tax return, finding no plain error in the jury instructions or the denial of severance.
• United States v. Lambert
  501 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 90×
  The court held that section 1001 does not apply to false statements made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when those statements do not relate to a pecuniary claim against the government.
• United States v. Savaiano
  843 F.2d 1280· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the wiretap evidence was admissible, as the applications and orders complied with state and federal statutes, and the defendants' constitutional rights were not violated. Post-interception authorization was not required as the wiretap order was properly amende
• United States v. Elam
  678 F.2d 1234· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-21 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a single conspiracy, not multiple independent ones, and that the convictions should be affirmed.
• Smith F. Brandom, Jr. v. United States
  431 F.2d 1391· 7th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting certain evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Harrell
  737 F.2d 971· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Hawkins' conviction on the Travel Act charge (Count Three), reversing that conviction, but affirmed all other convictions and rulings.
• Hart v. State
  761 So. 2d 334· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-06-24 ·cited 85×
  Hart was convicted of corruption by threat under Florida Statute § 838.021 for threatening to harm a public officer. Hart appealed arguing the information charged him with harming rather than threatening the officer, but the court affirmed because Hart failed to timely raise this
• United States v. Massa
  740 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 85×
  The court affirmed Massa's conviction on all counts and Skinner's conviction on all but three counts of interstate transportation of forged securities, finding no prejudicial variance and that any error in admitting coconspirator hearsay was harmless.
• 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. Georgalis
  631 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-03 ·cited 85×
  The court held that while a prosecutor's improper questioning about a non-existent conviction was error, it was harmless given the strength of the evidence and corrective instructions; however, mail fraud was not proven for two counts where the mailed letters were not in furthera
• United States v. Heath
  580 F.2d 1011· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the majority's conclusion sustaining the convictions was incorrect due to numerous reversible errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, Jencks Act violations, and a prejudicial variance between the indictment's single conspiracy theory and the evidence of mu
• United States v. Cruz
  478 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-04 ·cited 85×
  The court held that indictments based on hearsay are valid, destroyed notes do not violate the Jencks Act if not substantially verbatim, and variance or joinder issues do not require reversal absent prejudice, especially in a bench trial.
• Jimenez v. State
  158 Fla. 719· Fla.· 1947-04-08 ·cited 85×
  Appellants Jimenez and Hernandez were convicted of assault with intent to commit rape (rather than rape itself) for a February 1946 assault on a female victim. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, holding that the jury properly had the power to convict of the les
• United States v. Esau Jackson
  696 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the government failed to prove a single conspiracy as alleged, leading to a variance error that prejudiced the defendants' right to a fair trial. However, Jackson's convictions on substantive mail fraud counts were affirmed due to sufficient independent eviden
• United States v. Lenin Juarez and Oscar Juarez
  573 F.2d 267· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-19 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the warrantless search of Lenin Juarez was legal under both the consent and exigent circumstances exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and that the tape recordings were admissible.
• United States v. Marisa Lemm
  680 F.2d 1193· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-15 ·cited 83×
  The evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions on the RICO counts because it failed to establish a common purpose, continuity of structure or personnel, or a distinct enterprise.
• United States v. Leach
  427 F.2d 1107· 1st Cir.· 1970-06-15 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the defendants were not prejudiced by the denial of their motion for a bill of particulars and that there was sufficient evidence to support their convictions for making false statements in a loan application.
• United States v. Tarantino
  846 F.2d 1384· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a single chain conspiracy for distributing cocaine and laundering its proceeds, and that the appellants' actions were in furtherance of this overarching objective. The court affirmed convictions except for one sentencin
• United States v. Galiffa
  734 F.2d 306· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 82×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that a jury instruction on aiding and abetting a conspiracy is permissible even if not explicitly stated in the indictment, and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Lawson
  507 F.2d 433· 7th Cir.· 1974-11-26 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a mistrial after inadmissible evidence was displayed, nor in refusing to define reasonable doubt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Hoffa
  367 F.2d 698· 7th Cir.· 1966-10-04 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly impeaching a defendant with a subsequent conviction and by communicating with the jury in the absence of the defendants and their counsel.
• United States v. Parness
  503 F.2d 430· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the RICO statute applied to the acquisition of a foreign corporation through criminal acts affecting U.S. commerce, and that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Shapiro
  383 F.2d 680· 7th Cir.· 1967-08-24 ·cited 80×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The majority held that the trial court erred by not using the American Law Institute's definition of insanity, requiring a new trial. The dissenting judge disagreed, believing the given instruction was proper.
• United States v. Houlihan
  332 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1964-05-19 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excusing a juror in the absence of counsel due to an emergency, nor was there a fatal variance or insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Miles Dearden, Jr.
  546 F.2d 622· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-03 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to sever, denying deposition requests due to delay, and that comments on the defense's failure to counter evidence were permissible. Convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Marmon Dennis Record
  873 F.2d 1363· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single, ongoing conspiracy and that the defendant did not effectively withdraw from it, thus affirming the convictions and upholding venue.
• United States v. Richardson
  764 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the government's use of a confidential informant did not constitute overreaching, evidence of prior bad acts was admissible, taped conversations were properly admitted, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and a variance between the indictment a
• United States v. Toliver
  541 F.2d 958· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-02 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and proof of multiple conspiracies is not fatal if it does not affect the substantial rights of the accused, and that a defendant's absence from trial due to illness, while a constitutional violati
• United States v. Jones
  913 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.