Confrontation Clause

1,935 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,522 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Richardson v. State
  246 So. 2d 771· Fla.· 1971-03-31 ·cited 1704×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed Richardson's arson conviction due to two prosecutorial errors: the State's failure to timely disclose a key witness's name (Dick Davis) in violation of discovery rules, and the State's prejudicial use of an accomplice witness (Grooms) who invoke
• Ramirez v. State
  739 So. 2d 568· Fla.· 1999-07-08 ·cited 402×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed Nathan Ramirez's death sentence for the first-degree murder of Mildred Boroski, finding that his confession was obtained in violation of Miranda rights and that improper hearsay evidence regarding his codefendant's confession was admitted at tri
• Thompson v. State
  759 So. 2d 650· Fla.· 2000-04-13 ·cited 347×·via Right To Confrontation
  William L. Thompson, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion and petitioned for habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of the motion and rejected all claims, finding most were procedurally
• Fredford James Eutsey v. State
  383 So. 2d 219· Fla.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 336×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Florida's habitual offender statute (section 775.084) against a due process challenge, holding that enhanced sentencing proceedings need not provide all the procedural safeguards of criminal trials for determining guilt. T
• McDUFFIE v. State
  970 So. 2d 312· Fla.· 2007-11-21 ·cited 277×·via Right To Confrontation
  Roy Lee McDuffie was convicted of two first-degree murders, robbery with a firearm, and false imprisonment in connection with the October 2002 deaths of two Dollar General employees. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions and death sentences, finding that multiple tri
• Dusty Ray Spencer v. State
  645 So. 2d 377· Fla.· 1994-09-22 ·cited 266×·via Right To Confrontation
  Dusty Ray Spencer was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of his wife Karen Spencer and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly found t
• United States v. Thevis
  665 F.2d 616· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 261×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting Underhill's grand jury testimony under a hearsay exception and that the conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 241 was valid.
• Grossman v. State
  525 So. 2d 833· Fla.· 1988-02-18 ·cited 256×
  Martin Grossman was convicted of first-degree murder for killing Wildlife Officer Margaret Park during an armed confrontation in Pinellas County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, addressing eighteen issues on appeal including constitu
• United States v. Oates
  560 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-03 ·cited 256×
  The court held that the chemist's report and worksheet were inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence, requiring reversal and a new trial.
• United States v. Louin Ray Bright
  630 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 230×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the pre-trial rulings, trial rulings, jury charge, or closing arguments.
• United States v. Diecidue
  603 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 226×·via Right To Confrontation
  A RICO conspiracy indictment adequately alleges an essential element when it charges defendants with willfully and knowingly conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c) and describes the nature of the racketeering activities composing the alleged pattern. The definition of 'enter
• Finney v. State
  660 So. 2d 674· Fla.· 1995-07-20 ·cited 222×·via Right To Confrontation
  Charles Finney appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and dealing in stolen property, as well as his death sentence, in the stabbing death of Sandra Sutherland. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and the death penalty after finding suffici
• State v. Townsend
  635 So. 2d 949· Fla.· 1994-04-21 ·cited 216×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a child found incompetent to testify due to age and inability to understand the duty to tell the truth is nevertheless "unavailable" under Florida's child sexual abuse hearsay exception (§ 90.803(23)), allowing admission of the child's hearsay
• Ford v. Strickland
  696 F.2d 804· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 214×
  The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's practice of considering non-record material on direct appeal in capital cases violates due process, and that failure to require full resentencing after invalidating aggravating factors is an error.
• United States v. Bozza
  365 F.2d 206· 2d Cir.· 1966-08-01 ·cited 209×
  The majority reverses convictions based on the admission of a co-defendant's confession, finding it prejudiced other defendants despite limiting instructions.
• Hyser v. Reed
  318 F.2d 225· D.C. Cir.· 1963-04-11 ·cited 203×
  Parolees are entitled to a hearing at a geographically reasonable location but not to appointed counsel, compulsory process, or confrontation in all cases.
• United States v. Silverstein
  732 F.2d 1338· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 200×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. DeLUNA
  763 F.2d 897· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 199×
  The court held that the magistrate was not required to disqualify, the search warrant was sufficiently specific, and co-conspirator statements were admissible and did not violate confrontation rights.
• Ruiz v. State
  743 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1999-04-01 ·cited 193×·via Right To Confrontation
  Walter Ruiz was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for a murder-for-hire killing. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction and vacated his sentence due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct during both guilt and penalty phases of trial, including imp
• United States v. Berkowitz
  662 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 189×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, limiting cross-examination, or in its handling of other issues raised by the defendants.
• United States v. Kahn
  381 F.2d 824· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-29 ·cited 185×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the credibility and lying witness instructions were not erroneous, the denial of a mistrial upon a co-defendant's guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of severance was proper.
• United States v. Adams
  759 F.2d 1099· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 184×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial, seized weapons were admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants.
• United States v. Satterfield
  743 F.2d 827· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-03 ·cited 181×
  The court held that the restitution provisions of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 are constitutional and do not violate the seventh, fifth, or fourteenth amendments.
• United States v. Lewis
  759 F.2d 1316· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 178×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to follow Rule 65 procedural safeguards when issuing a temporary restraining order freezing assets, which implicated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the defendant could not raise this issue on appe
• McArthur Breedlove v. State
  413 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 178×
  McArthur Breedlove was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, and theft arising from a home invasion and stabbing death, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, rejecting challenges based on Brady violations, suppression
• United States v. Onori
  535 F.2d 938· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 175×
  The court held that the trial court's actions regarding judicial comments, admission of 'other crimes' evidence, limitations on cross-examination, and use of transcripts did not constitute reversible error.
• Proffitt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  685 F.2d 1227· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-10 ·cited 174×
  The court held that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase because counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, particularly regarding the defendant's mental condition.
• United States v. Carlson
  547 F.2d 1346· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 172×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the admission of grand jury testimony under Fed.R.Ev. 804(b)(5) was proper because the declarant was unavailable due to the defendant's actions, and the defendant waived his confrontation rights by causing the unavailability. The court also found the testimony
• Roberts v. State
  568 So. 2d 1255· Fla.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 171×·via Right To Confrontation
  Rickey Bernard Roberts, a death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder, armed sexual battery, and armed kidnapping, sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction and death sentence. The Flor
• Hopkins v. State
  632 So. 2d 1372· Fla.· 1994-01-20 ·cited 170×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's failure to make specific statutory findings required by section 92.54(5) before permitting a child witness to testify via closed-circuit television does not constitute fundamental error, but such failure is error that must be re
• United States v. Phyliss Briscoe
  896 F.2d 1476· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 164×
  The admission of a co-defendant's statement, even if it implicates the defendant, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the violation is harmless error.
• United States v. Fleishman
  684 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 164×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting agent opinion testimony regarding lookout activity, handwriting expert testimony, or coconspirator hearsay statements, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Hartley
  678 F.2d 961· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 163×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a corporation can conspire with its own officers, agents, and employees, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and RICO violations.
• Tompkins v. State
  502 So. 2d 415· Fla.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 159×·via Right To Confrontation
  Wayne Tompkins was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for strangling 15-year-old Lisa DeCarr in 1983. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and death sentence, rejecting challenges to the admission of Tompkins' confession, cross-examination l
• Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda
  79 Fla. 709· Fla.· 1920-05-10 ·cited 158×·via Right To Confrontation
  Will and Robert Blackwell were convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court rejected numerous assignments of error regarding jury composition, jury instructions, admission of prior trial testimony, and defense counsel repres
• United States v. Cole
  755 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 156×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana and attempted importation, and that various procedural challenges raised by the appellants were without merit.
• United States v. Baxter
  492 F.2d 150· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 156×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of an over-all narcotics conspiracy and the participation of each of the eight defendants, and that the trial court did not err in denying their motions for severance.
• Postell v. State
  398 So. 2d 851· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-04-28 ·cited 155×
  Larry Postell was convicted of armed robbery based largely on eyewitness identification, but the trial court admitted highly prejudicial hearsay testimony about an unidentified woman's statements to police officers implicating Postell, without allowing cross-examination. The appe
• United States v. Somers
  496 F.2d 723· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 154×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in denying severance motions, refusing to recall a witness, refusing to compel a witness to testify, or due to prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Cardillo
  316 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-24 ·cited 154×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not striking Friedman's testimony against Harris and Kaminsky because his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege prevented cross-examination on matters directly related to the charges, thus violating their Sixth Amendment right to
• Rodriguez v. State
  609 So. 2d 493· Fla.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 153×
  Juan David Rodriguez was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and related crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of Abelardo Saladrigas during a robbery and an attempted home invasion the following day. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and deat
• Donaldson v. State
  722 So. 2d 177· Fla.· 1998-04-30 ·cited 148×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Donaldson's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated child abuse in the deaths of two children, but reversed his death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase. The court found the trial court erred in a
• Quawn M. Franklin v. State
  965 So. 2d 79· Fla.· 2007-06-21 ·cited 147×
  Quawn Franklin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the shooting death of Jerry Lawley during an attempted robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Franklin's challenges regarding confrontation clause viol
• Martin v. State
  705 So. 2d 1337· Fla.· 1997-12-24 ·cited 144×
  Pablo San Martin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for his role in an attempted check-cashing business robbery that resulted in the death of Raul Lopez. On direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, San Martin raised seventeen claims of error, including
• Johnson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  463 So. 2d 207· Fla.· 1985-01-28 ·cited 144×·via Right To Confrontation
  Larry Joe Johnson, a death row inmate, challenged his conviction and death sentence through habeas corpus and a Rule 3.850 motion, arguing his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain trial errors. The Florida Supreme Court rejected his ineffectiveness claim
• United States v. Kenny
  645 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 144×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of a single conspiracy, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on the order of proof, admission of evidence, or jury instructions.
• Posey v. United States
  416 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-17 ·cited 144×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
• United States v. Winter
  663 F.2d 1120· 1st Cir.· 1981-10-30 ·cited 142×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Government's use of a non-statutory immunity agreement with a key witness was permissible and did not violate defendants' rights, and that the jury's decision to credit the witness's testimony was within their prerogative.
• United States v. Scholle
  553 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 142×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because substantial independent evidence showed a likelihood of illicit association, and that the admission of prior consistent statements and evidence of prior bad acts was permissible under the Federal Ru
• United States ex rel. Luther Miller v. Twomey
  479 F.2d 701· 7th Cir.· 1973-05-16 ·cited 141×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the dismissal of claims alleging cruel and unusual punishment due to reckless endangerment and apply the full procedural safeguards of Morrissey v. Brewer to parole and good time revocation proceedings.