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

• Phillips v. Neil
  452 F.2d 337· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-07 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
  The admission of psychiatric reports, written by unidentified authors and not subject to cross-examination, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even if admissible under a state hearsay exception.
• Sinclair v. Turner
  447 F.2d 1158· 10th Cir.· 1971-09-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and that the petitioner waived her right against self-incrimination by testifying. The exclusion of jurors conscientiously opposed to the death penalty did not violate due process or fa
• United States v. Dioguardi
  428 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-27 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Jess Boss Safley
  408 F.2d 603· 4th Cir.· 1969-03-17 ·cited 40×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the denial of a severance was not reversible error, nor was the sufficiency of evidence regarding FDIC insurance or a flawed jury instruction, as any prejudice was either absent or harmless.
• Maguire v. United States
  396 F.2d 327· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-28 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's conviction under the Dyer Act was valid, affirming the lower court's decisions regarding speedy trial, access to information, assistance of counsel, venue, search and seizure, and Miranda warnings.
• Major A. Eberhart, Jr. v. United States
  262 F.2d 421· 9th Cir.· 1958-12-29 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that claims of illegal search and seizure, and the government's failure to produce a witness, were frivolous and should have been raised on direct appeal.
• United States v. Trinity Rolando Cabezas-Montano
  949 F.3d 567· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-30 ·cited 39×
  Three defendants convicted of maritime drug trafficking under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess and possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine aboard a stateless vessel in interna
• Belvin v. State
  922 So. 2d 1046· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-08 ·cited 39×
  Bruce Belvin challenges his DUI conviction based on the admission of a breath test affidavit without the opportunity to cross-examine the breath test technician. The Fourth District Court of Appeal grants certiorari, holding that portions of the breath test affidavit describing t
• State v. Clark
  614 So. 2d 453· Fla.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 39×
  Constitutional errors involving the improper admission of a discovery deposition as substantive evidence in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause are subject to harmless error analysis; however, when a deposition provides non-cumulative evidence not testified to b
• Bundy v. Dugger
  850 F.2d 1402· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 39×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no abuse of the writ, no incompetence to stand trial, no denial of choice of counsel, no ineffective assistance of counsel, no improper Faretta inquiry, no constitutional issue regarding the race of t
• United States v. Kail
  804 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, the evidence seized was admissible, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for mail fraud.
• United States v. Mouzin
  785 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 39×
  A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Due Process rights are violated when their attorney is disbarred and fails to inform the client or the court of this fact, and the defendant is denied presence at an in camera discussion of the matter.
• United States v. Domina
  784 F.2d 1361· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 39×
  The court should have applied the Supreme Court's test for identification reliability to in-court suggestive identification procedures, which would have led to the conclusion that the appellant was denied a fair trial.
• United States v. Burke
  738 F.2d 1225· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination, denying a Jackson v. Denno hearing, admitting identification testimony, or admitting extrinsic offense evidence.
• United States v. Benavidez
  664 F.2d 1255· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 39×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a trial court's failure to fully comply with Rule 44(c) is not reversible error unless the defendant demonstrates an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance. The court also held that the trial court did not err in limiting cro
• United States v. Orlander Raymond Brown
  546 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 39×
  The court held that while restricting cross-examination regarding a probation officer's sentencing recommendation was error, it was harmless error, and the conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Telesforo Ray Gomez
  529 F.2d 412· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 39×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court adheres to the result of the main opinion but expresses concern over the admission of hearsay evidence.
• Hutchins v. State
  286 So. 2d 244· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-11-06 ·cited 39×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed a conviction for unlawful possession of a narcotic drug but addressed the admissibility of a video-taped deposition of an unavailable witness.
• Blanton v. State
  978 So. 2d 149· Fla.· 2008-03-13 ·cited 38×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a discovery deposition does not satisfy the Sixth Amendment's requirement of a prior opportunity for cross-examination under Crawford v. Washington, even though the defendant had the opportunity to depose the witness. However, the Court affirme
• State v. Moroni Lopez
  974 So. 2d 340· Fla.· 2008-01-10 ·cited 38×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a victim's testimonial statement identifying the defendant as possessing a firearm violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, and that a discovery deposition conducted by defense counsel does not
• G.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  791 So. 2d 17· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-03-30 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  Parents appealed a dependency order finding their two daughters dependent on the state based on alleged sexual abuse by the father and mental abuse by the mother. The appellate court affirmed the finding of sexual abuse but reversed the mental abuse finding against the mother, ho
• Lawrence v. State
  691 So. 2d 1068· Fla.· 1997-03-13 ·cited 38×
  Michael Alan Lawrence appeals his death sentence imposed after remand from a prior appeal that vacated his original sentence due to evidentiary errors. The Florida Supreme Court affirms Lawrence's death sentence, finding that the trial court properly considered aggravating and mi
• United States v. DE LA Vega
  913 F.2d 861· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 38×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed the convictions of all appellants but vacated the sentences of Betancourt and De La Vega, remanding for re-sentencing.
• United States v. Bigelow
  914 F.2d 966· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions of all defendants but vacated their sentences, remanding for resentencing consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found the 'ostrich instruction' appropriate for Lima, Bigelow's hearsay objections meritless, Vaughan's due process ch
• United States v. Byrd
  898 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that conduct charged in dismissed counts, even if denied by the defendant, can be considered 'relevant conduct' for sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines if it is part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction, and the evidenc
• United States v. Smith
  869 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 38×
  The court held that spectrographic voice identification expert testimony is admissible under the Frye standard if a proper foundation is laid, and that the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by the use of a substitute expert who relied on spectrograms prepa
• United States v. Dempsey
  733 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  A conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require the indictment to allege an overt act, and the court affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Brown
  699 F.2d 585· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 38×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The admission of a post-indictment, uncounseled statement for impeachment purposes violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and its use to incriminate a co-defendant denied the co-defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Nunzio Provenzano
  688 F.2d 194· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' RICO convictions were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding severance, grand jury procedures, and the denial of psychiatric examinations for witnesses.
• Steele v. Taylor
  684 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
• United States v. Andrew
  666 F.2d 915· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Coven
  662 F.2d 162· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding recusal, confrontation rights, government summation, jury instructions, Fourth Amendment claims, or the sufficiency of the conspiracy count.
• United States v. Julienne Jesse MAY
  622 F.2d 1000· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that defendants were properly charged by information, not indictment, and that the bar letters were sufficient to preclude reentry, and that the admission of photographs and data cards was proper.
• United States v. Teodoro Ariza-Ibarra
  605 F.2d 1216· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a non-testifying informant's reliability and past identifications constituted reversible error, violating the defendants' right to confrontation.
• United States v. Adams
  566 F.2d 962· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Bazzano
  570 F.2d 1120· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court suggests that federal appellate courts should adopt a rule requiring trial judges to state the reasons for their sentences, using supervisory power.
• United States v. McMANUS
  560 F.2d 747· 6th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule was properly applied, probable cause existed for the search, and the informant's identity was not required to be disclosed.
• United States v. Dewayne Lee Ratcliffe
  550 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 38×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, though later inadmissible, did not taint the convictions given ample independent evidence, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment.
• United States v. Clark
  480 F.2d 1249· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting hearsay testimony cured by cross-examination, refusing severance, or in its jury instructions, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Brumley
  466 F.2d 911· 10th Cir.· 1972-08-14 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the automobile were lawful based on consent and investigative stop principles, and that the indictment did not require dismissal due to the waiver of a preliminary hearing. Furthermore, the court found no denial of a fair trial base
• United States v. Cunningham
  446 F.2d 194· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the interrogation of Agent Swayze was improper and prejudicial error as to defendant Cunningham.
• Mac McABEE v. United States
  434 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-20 ·cited 38×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that jury instructions allowing inferences of knowledge and interstate transportation from possession of recently stolen firearms are constitutionally valid.
• Mason v. United States
  408 F.2d 903· 10th Cir.· 1969-03-17 ·cited 38×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that admitting prior trial testimony of witnesses who refused to testify at the second trial, despite being granted immunity, was proper because the witnesses were unavailable. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in denying motions for acquittal or
• Conn v. The United States
  376 F.2d 878· Ct. Cl.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the plaintiff's reduction-in-grade and undesirable discharge were invalid due to procedural irregularities and noncompliance with military regulations.
• Ware v. United States
  376 F.2d 717· 7th Cir.· 1967-05-01 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's absence during jury communication, while a procedural impropriety, does not automatically require reversal if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Kolod v. United States
  371 F.2d 983· 10th Cir.· 1967-02-03 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellants' proffer of FBI surveillance evidence, their motion for severance, or their requested jury instruction.
• D'Ercole v. United States
  361 F.2d 211· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-19 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's claims do not warrant vacating his conviction, as they either were previously decided on appeal or are procedurally barred.
• Easley v. Hunter
  209 F.2d 483· 10th Cir.· 1953-12-30 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that civil courts will not review military court-martial decisions if the military tribunals have fully and fairly considered the constitutional questions presented.
• Dear Check Quong v. United States
  160 F.2d 251· D.C. Cir.· 1947-02-10 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the statutory presumption regarding possession of narcotics was constitutional. The search of the informer was also deemed sufficient.
• Arthur v. State
  818 So. 2d 589· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-26 ·cited 37×·via Right To Confrontation
  Arthur was charged with driving after his license was revoked as a habitual traffic offender. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that the State need only prove the Department designated him a habitual offender and revoked his license—not the specific prior offenses underl