MARSHALL

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (48 total)

• Mingle v. State, 429 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …n of petitioners’ motions. Both petitioners were relying upon the defense of entrapment; and their motions contained lengthy allegations of fact on which they relied. As stated in United States v. Freund, 525 F. 2d 873, 877 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923, 96 S.Ct. 2631, 49 L.Ed.2d 377 (1976): In Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), the United States Supreme Court indicated that the in camera procedure was an acceptable device to aid the trial court in its ap…
• Bell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
  …d 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). This is not a case where a mandatory sentence flows ineluctably from a conviction not itself tainted by a deprivation of the right to counsel. See United States v. Carroll, 510 F. 2d 507, 511-12 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923, 96 S.Ct. 2633, 49 L.Ed.2d 378 (1976). Nothing in the record suggests that appellant waived his right to be represented by counsel throughout trial and sentencing. No such waiver can be presumed from a record silent in this regard, Johnson v. Zerbs…
• Boone v. State, 451 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
  …rial if the confidential informant is available and his or her testimony is inculpatory. We think it proper, therefore, to remand for an in-camera hearing. United States v. Freund, 525 F. 2d 873, after remand, 532 F. 2d 501 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923, 96 S.Ct. 2631, 49 L.Ed.2d 377 (1976); See Coby v. State and Riggins v. State, supra. See also State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Mingle v. State, 429 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). If the trial court finds that the informer’s tes…