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

• Puleio v. Vose
  830 F.2d 1197· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were procedurally barred or lacked constitutional merit, affirming the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. ARD
  731 F.2d 718· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 45×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various challenges, including those related to search and seizure, sufficiency of evidence, variance, conflict of interest, co-conspirator statements, cross-examination, presentat
• United States v. Mazzei
  700 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 45×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of RICO, and that the proof of the enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity could coalesce. The court also held that the district court did not improperly remove the factual determination o
• Niziolek v. Ashe
  694 F.2d 282· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Rose v. Lundy 'total exhaustion' rule does not require a federal appellate court to decline review of a district court decision on the merits of exhausted claims in a mixed petition when the district court opinion issued before Rose or so close in time as
• United States v. Rich
  580 F.2d 929· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-08 ·cited 45×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that his various procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Rea Lyn Segal
  549 F.2d 1293· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 45×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissent argues that the record must show a probationer's awareness of the rights waived by admitting probation violations, similar to the requirement for guilty pleas.
• United States v. Higginbotham
  539 F.2d 17· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-19 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were preserved, and the conviction was affirmed.
• State v. Jones
  625 So. 2d 821· Fla.· 1993-08-26 ·cited 44×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision that excluded physicians' hearsay testimony regarding a child sexual abuse victim's identification of her assailant. The Court held that while such statements are not admissible under the medical dia
• United States v. Alvarado
  882 F.2d 645· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of redacted statements from a nontestifying codefendant, where names were replaced by neutral pronouns, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. It also held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for usi
• United States v. Fields
  871 F.2d 188· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of Robert Wayne's out-of-court statements through Gail Brown was proper, and that evidence of other crimes was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3) and 404(b).
• United States v. Petit
  841 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 is valid even if the substantive offense (possessing stolen goods) was factually impossible because the goods were not actually stolen, as long as the defendants believed they were stolen. The court also held that
• Clark v. Dugger
  834 F.2d 1561· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 44×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's request for a psychiatric expert because the defendant failed to make a preliminary showing that his sanity was a significant factor at trial. The court also found no constitutional violations regarding ju
• United States v. Dorsey
  819 F.2d 1055· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of extrinsic act evidence and a prosecutor's comment were not reversible error.
• United States v. Randy Lamont Patterson aka Randy Brown
  819 F.2d 1495· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, severance denials, or procedural errors. Joinder was proper, coconspirator testimony admissible, and prosecutorial misconduct, while present, was not grounds for reversal.
• Magill v. State
  457 So. 2d 1367· Fla.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
  Paul Magill appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion in a capital murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel and rejecting claims about the imposition of death penalty on a minor as not properly cogni
• United States v. McCLURE
  734 F.2d 484· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, discovery, or a specific jury instruction, and that the indictment was sufficient.
• Moreno v. State
  418 So. 2d 1223· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-09-07 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
  Antonio Moreno was convicted of culpable negligence after a fight resulting from a traffic altercation. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding three reversible errors: exclusion of similar-fact evidence showing the state's witnesses committed a nearly
• United States v. Alessandrello
  637 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1980-11-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendants' absence from a small portion of the jury selection process, where individual jurors were questioned in a small anteroom, did not constitute reversible error because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Sullivan v. State
  372 So. 2d 938· Fla.· 1979-06-22 ·cited 44×
  Robert Sullivan, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1973, sought collateral relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion, finding that eleven of twelve issues raised were barred
• United States v. Schwanke
  598 F.2d 575· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 44×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the government adequately established jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements was permissible when the declarant testified and was subject to cross-examination. However, the court agreed that the
• United States v. LEE
  589 F.2d 980· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-02 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately covered the defendant's theory of the case, CIA affidavits were admissible, discovery was properly limited, expert testimony was irrelevant, and an evidentiary hearing on a conflict of interest was not required.
• United States v. Rony Mann
  590 F.2d 361· 1st Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the deposition of a key witness to be taken and admitted into evidence, and that the admission of 'other acts' evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
• United States v. Stewart
  579 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be sentenced under both 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and § 924(c) for a single bank robbery transaction. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Sand
  541 F.2d 1370· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-13 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that pre-indictment delay did not violate due process, bank records obtained via civil summonses were admissible, and challenges to taint hearings and foreign record authentication were without merit.
• United States v. Alberti
  470 F.2d 878· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-22 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that neither appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel or a fair trial, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Carrion
  463 F.2d 704· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge's improper remarks, while unfortunate, did not create an atmosphere so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial, and that the limitations on cross-examination were within the court's discretion.
• United States ex rel. Stanley Meadows v. State OF NEW York & Warden of the United States Penitentiary
  426 F.2d 1176· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-05 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the habeas corpus petition to New York because the prisoner was incarcerated in Georgia, and the petition could only be brought in the district of incarceration.
• Santoro v. United States
  402 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-31 ·cited 44×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the introduction of codefendants' out-of-court statements did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because the codefendants testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination.
• Wilson v. Gray
  345 F.2d 282· 9th Cir.· 1965-04-21 ·cited 44×·via Right To Confrontation
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kramer
  778 F. Supp. 2d 1320· M.D. Fla.· 2011-04-01 ·cited 43×
  The court held that Baker's statements were inadmissible hearsay and granted Kramer's motion to exclude them. The court also sustained Kramer's objection to the magistrate judge's order denying his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Commission.
• Zonald Watson Weatherford v. State
  561 So. 2d 629· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-05-07 ·cited 43×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Zonald Weatherford was convicted by jury of committing a lewd act upon a child. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding three trial court errors: admission of hearsay evidence without required statutory findings, improper expert testimony
• Shaw v. Boney
  695 F.2d 528· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 43×
  The admission of a "double hearsay" threat into evidence, even if erroneous, did not render the petitioner's state murder trial fundamentally unfair, and thus did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Tolliver
  665 F.2d 1005· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 43×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the entry was justified by exigent circumstances, and the restriction on cross-examination was within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Odell Marshall
  532 F.2d 1279· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-24 ·cited 43×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, informant disclosure, discovery requests, or in admitting prior convictions and prior bad acts evidence. Jury instructions were also found to be proper.
• United States v. The Bensinger Co.
  430 F.2d 584· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the conspiracy to fix the price of a single dishwasher, which involved interstate commerce, constituted a per se violation of the Sherman Act, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• Donald Lenneth Banks v. State
  46 So. 3d 989· Fla.· 2010-06-03 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  Donald Banks was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for stabbing Linda Volum fourteen times. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, rejecting six appellate challenges including claims regarding jury selection, DNA evidence admis
• Smith v. State
  28 So. 3d 838· Fla.· 2009-12-17 ·cited 42×
  Joseph Smith appeals his capital convictions and death sentence for the kidnapping, sexual battery, and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia in 2004. The Florida Supreme Court affirms all convictions and the death sentence, finding overwhelming evidence of guilt and proportionate
• Harrell v. State
  709 So. 2d 1364· Fla.· 1998-04-23 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that testimony via satellite transmission does not violate the Confrontation Clause when a witness resides beyond the court's subpoena power, provided specific procedural safeguards are met. The court established that while satellite testimony is no
• United States v. Chavez-Vernaza
  844 F.2d 1368· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-28 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Chavez did not meet his burden for disclosure under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(c) because he did not allege the prosecutor still had possession of the financial records.
• Berrisford v. Wood
  826 F.2d 747· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 42×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional error in the admission of evidence or jury instructions, and sufficient evidence for the conviction.
• United States v. Riad Youssef Rahme
  813 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 42×
  A defendant who fails to pay for a hotel room and whose luggage is lawfully taken by the hotel loses any legitimate expectation of privacy in that luggage, even if arrested. Statements by a coconspirator identifying a source and reassuring a listener are considered made in furthe
• United States v. Marchini
  797 F.2d 759· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that admitting a witness-spouse's grand jury testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5) does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the testimony has particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and the witness is unavailable due to a bona fide marital privilege. The c
• United States v. Moody
  778 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that co-conspirator testimony was properly admitted, the Jencks Act was not violated, plea-bargained testimony is admissible and subject to cross-examination, and the prosecution was not impermissibly selective.
• United States v. Ambrose
  740 F.2d 505· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district judge, when sentencing an aider and abettor of a drug kingpin, is not bound by the minimum sentence provisions of the kingpin statute, allowing for more proportionate sentencing.
• United States v. Haimowitz
  706 F.2d 1549· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or denying surrebuttal, and the conspiracy count was not duplicitous.
• Molina v. State
  406 So. 2d 57· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-17 ·cited 42×
  Molina appeals his armed burglary-robbery conviction, arguing that testimony from investigating officers regarding statements made by non-testifying co-defendants violated his right to confrontation. The court holds that such testimony constitutes hearsay when it creates an inesc
• United States v. Brown
  634 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court's upholding of the marital privilege did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or Fifth Amendment due process rights, as the excluded testimony was cumulative and the defendant had ample alternative means to impe
• United States v. Weninger
  624 F.2d 163· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-26 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel by stubbornly refusing to hire an attorney despite repeated warnings and opportunities. The court also held that the new evidence presented did not meet the stringent standard for a new tria
• United States v. Panza
  612 F.2d 432· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge would reverse the convictions because the trial court did not adequately consider or articulate the ineffectiveness of other sanctions before striking the defendant's entire testimony.
• United States v. McMANAMAN
  606 F.2d 919· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the admission of a recorded conversation for impeachment purposes was permissible, the admission of the entire conversation, including highly prejudicial discussions of murder plans, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.