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

• United States v. Love
  592 F.2d 1022· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the admission of an unsworn statement by an unavailable witness, offered under the statement against penal interest exception, was improper because the statement was not made under circumstances indicating it was against the declarant's penal interest when mad
• Isadore Hodges, Jr. v. Rose
  570 F.2d 643· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-14 ·cited 42×
  The admission of one defendant's redacted confession, which still implicitly implicated the codefendant, violated the Bruton rule, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Lament Floyd and Peter Olivo
  555 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-16 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Olivo's statements to Duffin about burning the getaway car were made in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus admissible.
• United States v. Scallion
  533 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that hotel casino records and telephone call records were properly admitted into evidence under the Business Records Act, as they were not hearsay and were relevant to the defendant's conduct.
• United States v. Dodge
  538 F.2d 770· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-26 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the refusal to give specific eyewitness identification instructions was not reversible error, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain conspiracy convictions.
• United States v. Forrest Gerry, Jr.
  515 F.2d 130· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-28 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the appellants' claims of error regarding sufficiency of evidence, witness competency, prejudicial references, and evidentiary rulings were unsubstantiated.
• Todd v. Lockhart
  490 F.2d 626· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-16 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A defective plea-taking record can be cured by a post-conviction hearing if the state affirmatively proves the plea was voluntary and intelligent.
• United States v. Cordell Cassell
  452 F.2d 533· 7th Cir.· 1971-10-06 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Cassell and Rice, finding no reversible error, but reversed Jackson's conviction due to the improper admission of his confession and handwriting exemplar obtained in violation of Miranda.
• Tippett v. State OF Md.
  436 F.2d 1153· 4th Cir.· 1971-01-04 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of petitions, holding that the Maryland Defective Delinquents Act, as applied, does not violate petitioners' constitutional rights.
• United States v. Johnson
  426 F.2d 1112· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-06 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was established over the hospital land, the Love instruction was inapplicable, Miranda warnings were substantially complied with, severance was properly denied, and convictions for conspiracy and burglary were valid.
• Farese v. United States
  428 F.2d 178· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-20 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the discovery of unintroduced cash by the jury during deliberations constituted reversible error because it could not be affirmatively shown that the error was not prejudicial.
• Harris v. United States
  371 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-19 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the trial court improperly limited cross-examination regarding an informer's payments, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
• Fletcher v. United States
  332 F.2d 724· D.C. Cir.· 1964-04-30 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the circumstances surrounding a witness's refusal to testify, particularly when the refusal was anticipated and the questions depicted the entire offense, unfairly prejudiced the defendant and affected his substantial rights.
• Hamer v. United States
  259 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1958-08-26 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge's voir dire was adequate, the use of a jury book by the prosecution did not constitute error per se, and the arrest and search were based on probable cause.
• Harrell v. United States
  220 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1955-03-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court properly determined the materiality of the alleged perjured testimony, that the testimony was indeed material, and that the admission of prior trial testimony was permissible.
• Matthews v. United States
  217 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1954-12-09 ·cited 42×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of the sugar reports, which were required by statute but not made in the regular course of the business for its own purposes, constituted prejudicial error because they were hearsay and did not fall under any recognized exception.
• Pagan v. State
  29 So. 3d 938· Fla.· 2009-10-01 ·cited 41×
  Alex Pagan appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate death sentences for two first-degree murders committed in 1993, raising claims of Brady violations, ineffective assistance of counsel regarding mitigation evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Florida Supre
• Damren v. State
  696 So. 2d 709· Fla.· 1997-05-08 ·cited 41×
  Floyd Damren was convicted of first-degree murder, armed burglary, and aggravated assault in the brutal killing of Don Miller during a burglary at a mining facility, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding no reversibl
• United States v. Paul C. "Paulie" Villano
  816 F.2d 1448· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 41×
• United States v. Lopez
  803 F.2d 969· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of evidence was proper, prosecutorial comments were not reversible error, the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions, and statutory interpretations were correct.
• United States v. Monks
  774 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-21 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting statements as adoptive admissions, refusing to allow cross-examination on a prior burglary, denying motions for mistrial, or refusing to dismiss charges based on alleged misrepresentation i
• United States v. Davis
  767 F.2d 1025· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 41×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that Swiss bank records were admissible despite a claimed treaty violation because the defendant lacked standing to raise the issue and had ample opportunity to challenge authenticity. The court also held that the district court properly ordered the defendant to ce
• United States v. Moran
  759 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-03 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing sixteen counts based on pre-indictment delay, but affirmed the defendant's conviction on the remaining count.
• United States v. Navarro
  737 F.2d 625· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying access to the informant's INS file or in restricting cross-examination regarding the informant's address and place of employment, and that entrapment was not established as a matter of law.
• United States v. Lara-Hernandez
  588 F.2d 272· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 41×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that new theories of relevance for cross-examination, raised for the first time post-trial, are barred on appeal absent plain error, and that untimely motions for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel are properly denied.
• United States v. Wolfson
  573 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-18 ·cited 41×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by providing insufficient jury instructions regarding the relevance of yacht sales prices and by unduly limiting cross-examination concerning insurance amounts.
• United States v. Anthony
  565 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-16 ·cited 41×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing jurors to take notes, in its order of proof, in denying a mistrial for a potentially withheld Jencks Act statement, or in denying severance motions. The court also found sufficient evidence to support co
• Nelson v. State
  148 Fla. 338· Fla.· 1941-10-24 ·cited 41×·via Right To Confrontation
  Ben Nelson was convicted of manslaughter in the murder of Leroy Heath and sentenced to ten years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to the trial court's deferral of a pretrial conference with state witnesses, its jury instruction en
• Corona v. State
  64 So. 3d 1232· Fla.· 2011-06-09 ·cited 40×
  Sergio Corona was convicted of capital sexual battery on his eleven-year-old daughter based primarily on hearsay statements made by the victim to police, which were introduced through officer testimony. The Florida Supreme Court held that a pretrial discovery deposition does not
• United States v. Sodonnie Leroy Christopher
  923 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while certain hearsay testimony was erroneously admitted, the errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and affirmed convictions but vacated one sentence for resentencing.
• United States v. Romo
  914 F.2d 889· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, probable cause for search warrants, discovery denials, sentencing provisions, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Anderson
  881 F.2d 1128· D.C. Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 40×
• United States v. Paris
  827 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court should have excluded the out-of-court statements unless the government granted use immunity to the declarant, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• United States v. Ferlin K. Dorian
  803 F.2d 1439· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the testimony of Roxanne's foster mother, Monica Whiting, regarding statements made by Roxanne, lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and thus violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Picciandra
  788 F.2d 39· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 40×
  The court held that pre-indictment delays did not violate due process rights, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were adequate. The judgments of sentence are affirmed.
• United States v. Paone
  782 F.2d 386· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirators' statements did not violate the Federal Rules of Evidence or the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause, that appellant Marotta was not denied conflict-free counsel, that New York's corroboration of accomplice testimony requireme
• United States v. O'Connor
  737 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government's conduct was not outrageous, there was sufficient evidence of possession, and evidentiary rulings were not reversible error. The convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Tamer Trad Mourad
  729 F.2d 195· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were largely affirmed, but Mourad's case was remanded for reconsideration of his sentence due to the merger of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise convictions.
• United States v. Valdez
  722 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a law enforcement officer's post-hypnotic identification testimony was improper and prejudicial, especially when the identification was of a suspect known to the witness and was uncorroborated.
• Ulysses LEE v. State
  422 So. 2d 928· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-02 ·cited 40×
  Lee was convicted of burglary and petit theft after being apprehended at a scrap metal yard. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the prosecutor improperly commented on Lee's post-arrest silence during closing arguments, violating Florida's more expa
• United States v. Traylor
  656 F.2d 1326· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the search warrant was properly issued based on probable cause derived from DEA investigation and a narcotics detection dog's alert, and that the search of the handbags was within the scope of the warrant. It also held that while some hearsay testimony was imp
• State v. James
  402 So. 2d 1169· Fla.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that discovery depositions taken under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d) are not admissible as substantive evidence at trial, even when the witness has died or become unavailable, because the rules expressly limit their use to impeachment
• United States v. Miranda-Uriarte
  649 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, the evidence was sufficient to convict, and the trial court did not err in its rulings on jury instructions, evidence admission, or cross-examination.
• United States v. Hernandez
  608 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying pre-trial disclosure of an informant's address, denying a continuance, excluding the public during the informant's testimony, or admitting an edited co-defendant statement, and properly rejected a duress jury instruction.
• United States v. Hickey
  596 F.2d 1082· 1st Cir.· 1979-04-19 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that suppressed evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights cannot be used to impeach a defendant's statements elicited on cross-examination if the defendant did not testify about the subject matter on direct examination. The court also held that a defendant d
• United States v. Poulack
  556 F.2d 83· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow the defendant to be represented by his preferred counsel, balancing the defendant's right to counsel against the need for an orderly and speedy trial. The court also held that the s
• United States v. Stassi
  544 F.2d 579· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-26 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various claims of procedural error, including issues related to a deported co-conspirator, speedy trial, admissibility of evidence, jury findings, and Brady material, were without
• Clutchette v. Procunier
  510 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-21 ·cited 40×
• United States v. LEE
  506 F.2d 111· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 40×
  The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded for supplementation on factual issues regarding an addict-informant's testimony before a final decision on conviction.
• United States v. Delmar Earl Chrisco
  493 F.2d 232· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 40×
  The court held that defendants were sufficiently present during jury impaneling and that improper prosecutorial remarks were not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence of guilt.