Wheel Conspiracy

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

• United States v. Al Taylor
  562 F.2d 1345· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-13 ·cited 151×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all appellants on all counts, with the concurring judge stating separate grounds for agreement on specific issues.
• United States v. Sutherland
  656 F.2d 1181· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 132×
  The court held that the government may try multiple, otherwise unrelated conspiracies as a single RICO enterprise conspiracy if the evidence shows an agreement to participate in the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, even without direct agreement between all m
• United States v. Mealy
  851 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 123×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence or responding to jury questions.
• United States v. Dante Angelo Grassi and Jack Louis Gail
  616 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-14 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Grassi's conviction for conspiracy under count 1, but sufficient for his conviction under count 2. The court also found sufficient evidence for Gail's conspiracy conviction and rejected his entrapment defense.
• United States v. Levine
  546 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-07 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the indictment improperly joined separate and distinct conspiracies in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), requiring reversal of the convictions and remand for a new trial.
• 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. Zicree
  605 F.2d 1381· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-08 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the mail fraud convictions, joinder of defendants was proper, and the trial judge did not err in denying motions for a new trial, giving an Allen charge, or qualifying an expert witness.
• 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. Baldarrama
  566 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and that the admission of a prior conviction was proper for showing identity. The court also found no reversible error in other evidentiary or procedural claims.
• United States v. Castro
  629 F.2d 456· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the second trial for conspiracy violated the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause because it charged the same conspiracy as the first trial, rendering the conviction void.
• United States v. Manarite
  448 F.2d 583· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and substantive violations of obscenity laws, finding ample evidence and no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• United States v. Nettles
  570 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendants were misjoined under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) because the indictment did not allege participation in the same series of acts or transactions. The court also held that there was insufficient evidence to prove Nettles' membership in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Estrada
  441 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the admission of money orders lacking proper foundation was prejudicial error for some defendants, but affirmed convictions where evidence was sufficient and foundational requirements were met.
• United States v. Zabare
  871 F.2d 282· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a single transaction, when viewed in context with surrounding circumstances like the quantity of goods and prior contact, can be sufficient to prove knowing participation in a conspiracy. It also held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest
• United States v. Fernandez
  892 F.2d 976· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of interaction between defendants concerning a common illegal object to support a single conspiracy trial.
• United States v. Hines
  717 F.2d 1481· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Castro
  829 F.2d 1038· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Jose Luis Castro was improperly joined in a single conspiracy charge with other defendants involved in a separate conspiracy, and this misjoinder was not harmless error. Therefore, Castro's conviction is vacated and remanded for a new trial.
• United States v. Alonza Ellis
  709 F.2d 688· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the joinder of multiple defendants in a single indictment was improper under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure because there was no evidence they participated in the same series of acts or transactions.
• United States v. Rosnow
  977 F.2d 399· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the conspiracy convictions must be reversed due to a prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof, as multiple conspiracies were proven but tried as one without adequate limiting instructions. However, all other substantive convictions were affirm
• United States v. Abelardo Padilla
  982 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-29
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a conspiracy and that any variance between the indictment and the proof was not prejudicial.