JAMES

v.

UNITED STATES; SMITH V. UNITED STATES; AND WHITMORE V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (270 total)

• Boyd v. State, 389 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
  …(5th Cir. 1974); cert. denied, 421 U.S. 918, 95 S.Ct. 1581, 43 L.Ed.2d 785 (1975). We note parenthetically that the court which rendered the Apollo decision recently overruled it. United States v. James, 590 F. 2d 575 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2836, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979). The James court held that the preliminary determination of the admissibility of a co-conspirator’s hearsay statement is to be made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), and that rule requires the trial j…
• LaPOLLA v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
  …nd LaPolla moved to dismiss. LaPolla moved to dismiss or sever. Defendants moved to exclude coconspira-tors’ testimony, and a James hearing was held prior to trial. (The reference is to United States v. James, 590 F. 2d 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2836, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979). James does not require a pretrial hearing, but merely that the trial court apply the following to determine the admissibility of coconspirator statements: coconspirator statements are admissible if the court fi…
• State v. Raphael Morales, 460 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
  …antial independent evidence, and (2) do not remain in the proof to be submitted to the jury unless their admissibility is established by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. James, 590 F. 2d 575, 583 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 2836, 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979). See also United States v. Nichols, 695 F. 2d 86 (5th Cir.1982). We believe the trial court’s exclusion of certain hearsay evidence in this case was not consistent with that test. That evidence consisted of cer…