CANTU

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (52 total)

• Howell v. State, 418 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …delay, because the United States Supreme Court had indicated that a showing of prejudice alone only “ ‘makes a due process claim concrete and ripe for adjudication.’ ” United States v. Brand, 556 F. 2d 1312, 1317 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063, 98 S.Ct. 1237, 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978), citing United States v. Lovasco, supra, at 431 U.S. at 789, 97 S.Ct. at 2048. Later decisions from the fifth circuit following Brand reflect uncertainty as to the proper test to be applied in determining wheth…
• Shaw v. State, 645 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
  …prejudice was obviously the basis for the court’s findings. See King v. State, 468 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. Union, 469 So. 2d [*71] 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). See also United States v. Brand, 556 F. 2d 1312 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063, 98 S.Ct. 1237, 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978); Turner v. Estelle, 515 F. 2d 853 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 955, 96 S.Ct. 1431, 47 L.Ed.2d 361 (1976); United States v. Smith, 487 F. 2d 175 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 846, 95 S.Ct. 82,…
• United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …a bill of particulars is, of course, to inform the defendant of the charge against him in sufficient detail that he may prepare a defense and to minimize surprise at trial. United States v. Cantu, 557 F. 2d 1173, 1178 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063, 98 S.Ct. 1236, 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978). The denial of a bill of particulars rests within the sound discretion of the district court and can be reversed by this Court only upon demonstration that defendant was actually surprised at trial and thus incu…