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

• Loren (Red) Brooks v. United States
  416 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-22 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the evidence against Brooks was insufficient for a conspiracy conviction, but the evidence supporting the convictions of Nipp and Moore for bank burglary and conspiracy was sufficient. The search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause.
• State v. Hollingsworth
  103 Fla. 801· Fla.· 1931-12-09 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court considered whether a writ of mandamus was appropriate to restore a doctor's license revoked by the State Board of Medical Examiners. The Court found that the Board failed to follow statutory procedures, denying the doctor fundamental rights, and thus gra
• Walton v. State
  847 So. 2d 438· Fla.· 2003-05-29 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jason Dirk Walton appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 challenging his conviction for three counts of first-degree murder and three death sentences. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, fi
• Morgan v. State
  639 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1994-06-02 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  James Morgan appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for life imprisonment, finding that the trial judge erroneously rejected mitigating factors including Morg
• United States v. de Ortiz
  907 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 48×
  The court did not definitively rule on whether co-conspirator hearsay alone can support a conviction, reserving the issue for later.
• United States v. Shoffner
  826 F.2d 619· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-11 ·cited 48×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the informant's conduct, while potentially unsavory, did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to violate due process, and statements made by a defendant to the informant were properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
• Marino v. Vasquez
  812 F.2d 499· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 48×
  The court held that jury misconduct involving an unauthorized dictionary definition of malice and an out-of-court experiment created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, warranting habeas relief for murder and attempted murder convictions, but not for felony false imprisonment.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  808 F.2d 886· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict the appellant of aiding and abetting the importation of controlled substances on January 14, 1985, as the circumstantial evidence did not establish his intent to make the venture succeed.
• Marr v. State
  494 So. 2d 1139· Fla.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts should not give jury instructions singling out sexual battery victims' testimony for heightened scrutiny. The court rejected the historical "Lord Hale" instruction and held that standard jury instructions adequately guide juries in
• United States v. Swingler
  758 F.2d 477· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the warrantless arrests of defendants Vicory, Houser, and Jahnke were supported by sufficient probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances and corroborating information.
• United States v. Shepherd
  739 F.2d 510· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior uncorroborated criminal acts, solely through the testimony of an accomplice, was an abuse of discretion because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The court also found no error in admitting co-conspirator stateme
• State v. Carr
  438 So. 2d 826· Fla.· 1983-09-29 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that an appeal following a nolo contendere plea is fatal if a legally dispositive issue was not expressly reserved, but also noted that the trial court erred in denying a motion to compel discovery of a victim's address without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Marino
  658 F.2d 1120· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that firearms found with a defendant charged with a large-scale drug conspiracy were admissible as relevant evidence of intent and that the indictment charging a single conspiracy was proper. The court also affirmed the admissibility of documents and rejected claim
• United States v. Harrison Odell Leach
  613 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• Larry v. Lawler
  605 F.2d 954· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the applicant was afforded due process and the Commission's findings were justified.
• United States v. Garrett
  542 F.2d 23· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 48×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by unduly restricting the defendant's cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regarding the witness's potential bias and credibility.
• United States v. Hill
  496 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for illegal liquor sales should be affirmed as the alleged errors in the trial proceedings were either permissible judicial conduct, waived by lack of objection, or did not rise to the level of plain error.
• Davis v. State
  277 So. 2d 300· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-04-19 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Earl Davis appealed his guilty pleas and sentences for robbery, extortion, breaking and entering, and petit larceny, claiming he was denied the right to appeal. The court held that Davis's guilty pleas were freely and voluntarily given with full knowledge of consequences, but rem
• United States v. Marti
  421 F.2d 1263· 2d Cir.· 1970-02-03 ·cited 48×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Convictions must be reversed because evidence was seized pursuant to unconstitutionally general search warrants, violating the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.
• Nolan v. United States
  423 F.2d 1031· 10th Cir.· 1969-11-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Fifth Amendment privilege by failing to assert it at trial, and that his claims regarding jury selection, co-conspirator's tax stamp, and electronic surveillance were without merit or waived.
• United States v. Holmes
  387 F.2d 781· 7th Cir.· 1967-11-20 ·cited 48×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant's Selective Service file, including a notation from the hospital indicating he did not report, was admissible as evidence. The court also found the evidence sufficient to prove the defendant failed to report for civilian duty.
• Buck Wilcoxon v. United States
  231 F.2d 384· 10th Cir.· 1956-02-20 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that a conviction based on testimony from witnesses who did not understand their oath is affirmed if the issue is not timely raised, constituting a waiver.
• United States v. Jiminez
  564 F.3d 1280· 11th Cir.· 2009-04-07 ·cited 47×
  Jesus Jiminez was convicted of manufacturing and distributing marijuana after police discovered a sophisticated grow operation at his residence containing 210 plants and large quantities of packaged marijuana. Jiminez appealed on three grounds: insufficient evidence, improper adm
• Booker v. State
  969 So. 2d 186· Fla.· 2007-08-30 ·cited 47×
  Stephen Todd Booker appeals the trial court's denial of his postconviction Rule 3.851 motion seeking to vacate his death sentence for a 1977 murder and sexual battery. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial, finding no credible evidence of attorney-client privilege violatio
• United States v. Drew
  894 F.2d 965· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that co-conspirator statements were admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury.
• United States v. Giry
  818 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and that the government's good-faith efforts to locate a confidential informant, who was deemed a conduit rather than a principal, did not deprive the d
• United States v. Loalza-Vasquez
  735 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 47×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in asserting jurisdiction, admitting hearsay evidence under the residual exception, denying severance, or finding no unconsented conflict of interest.
• Jackson v. State
  419 So. 2d 394· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-09-15 ·cited 47×
  George Jackson was convicted of indecent assault on a three-year-old child and sentenced to nine years in prison. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded to vacate cost assessments imposed against an indigent defendant.
• United States v. Garcia
  531 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 47×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of government witnesses regarding a confidential informant's past activities, nor in refusing requested jury charges on knowledge and specific intent.
• United States v. Newman
  490 F.2d 139· 3d Cir.· 1974-01-08 ·cited 47×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that aiding and abetting requires wilful participation, and by failing to strike testimony when a witness asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege on matters central to the defense. The court also found pr
• Bustamante v. Eyman
  456 F.2d 269· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 47×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the replay of electronically recorded instructions in the defendant's absence was not an error of constitutional dimension and, even if it were, it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Heriberto Diaz
  876 F.2d 1344· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of a government informant, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Lanza
  790 F.2d 1015· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, witness testimony was not unduly prejudicial, severance was not warranted, evidentiary rulings limiting cross-examination were within the trial court's discretion, and jury instructions on conscious avoidance were ap
• United States v. Fahey
  769 F.2d 829· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of a potential conflict of interest with his counsel was knowing and intelligent, and that the search of an unpatented mining claim and seizure of soil samples did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that a coconspirator
• United States v. Jarrad
  754 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that warrantless searches conducted by parole officers are permissible if reasonably believed necessary for their duties, and that prior identifications can be admitted under FRE 801(d)(1)(C) even if the witness denies them at trial, provided the witness is subject
• United States v. Inadi
  748 F.2d 812· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 46×
  The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires the government to demonstrate the unavailability of a non-testifying coconspirator before admitting their out-of-court statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The government failed to meet this burden for John Laza
• United States v. Garrett
  716 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 46×
• Jackson v. Carlson
  707 F.2d 943· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Federal prison disciplinary proceedings that provide adequate notice, opportunity to confront witnesses, and rely on some direct or reliable hearsay evidence do not violate due process, even if informal.
• United States v. Oliver
  626 F.2d 254· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-14 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement against a defendant, without the declarant being subject to cross-examination, violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation if the statement is crucial and devastating. A defendant's competency to stand trial is asse
• United States v. Glover
  596 F.2d 857· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-09 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that governmental interference with the attorney-client relationship, absent resulting prejudice or incriminating statements, does not require dismissal of an indictment. It also held that a defendant with low intelligence can knowingly and intelligently waive Mira
• Purdy v. State
  343 So. 2d 4· Fla.· 1977-02-03 ·cited 46×
  Clarence Purdy was convicted of involuntary sexual battery of a child under eleven years of age, a capital offense under Florida law, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment, holding that affirming th
• United States v. Heck
  499 F.2d 778· 9th Cir.· 1974-01-30 ·cited 46×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any defendant forcibly attempted to rescue seized property, reversing convictions on those counts. However, the court found sufficient evidence for conspiracy to assault and for substantiv
• United States v. Nasser
  476 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a client's knowing participation in a corrupt bargain with their lawyer can constitute a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
• United States v. Rosenstein
  474 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of certain Liechtenstein documents was not reversible error, as they were admissible either as admissions by the defendants or as declarations of co-conspirators, despite not meeting the business records exception.
• United States v. Pacelli
  470 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-30 ·cited 46×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statement, though error without limiting instructions, was harmless error, and the seizure of boric acid was permissible under the plain-view doctrine.
• United States v. Clayton
  450 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1971-10-28 ·cited 46×
  The court held that consolidation of indictments for trial was proper, admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements did not violate the Sixth Amendment, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose sentence under NARA.
• Baker v. Louie L. Wainwright
  422 F.2d 145· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that joint representation by a single attorney for co-defendants in a joint trial, where evidence implicating one defendant from the other's confession is introduced, creates a conflict of interest that denies effective assistance of counsel, even if the confessing
• Glazerman v. United States
  421 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1970-01-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while some convictions must be reversed due to individual tenure in the conspiracy, others are affirmed, and the admission of co-defendant statements was harmless error. The trial judge's conduct and instructions were not improper.
• van Bourg v. Nitze
  388 F.2d 557· D.C. Cir.· 1967-10-17 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the Navy Discharge Review Board's failure to provide a summary of ex parte reports and make required findings of fact constituted a procedural error, and the appellant's 1951 resignation did not waive his right to a proper review in 1963.
• Fotie v. United States
  137 F.2d 831· 8th Cir.· 1943-08-23 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government failed to carry its burden of proving the appellant was an alien who knowingly and falsely represented himself as a citizen, and that inadmissible evidence was prejudicial.