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

• State v. Ford
  626 So. 2d 1338· Fla.· 1993-11-10 ·cited 37×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that while a trial court may employ procedures not expressly authorized by law to protect child witnesses from trauma, the videotaped testimony of a four-year-old witness in a homicide case violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation righ
• Walton v. State
  481 So. 2d 1197· Fla.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 37×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jason Walton was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing because Walton was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront codefendants Cooper
• Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm
  715 F.2d 1050· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 37×
  The admission of a child victim's hearsay statements, made under the stress of excitement from a startling event, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if they possess sufficient indicia of reliability, even if the child is unavailable to testify.
• United States v. Hackett
  638 F.2d 1179· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 37×
  The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the garage and the subsequent arrest of the defendant, and that the denial of severance motions and the ex parte meetings did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Crumley
  565 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination of a government witness regarding their motive for testifying, specifically concerning the discovery of a stolen Cadillac, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. DOE
  525 F.2d 878· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 37×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the post-trial in camera proceeding with a confidential informant was proper and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Buttler v. State
  238 So. 2d 313· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-08-04 ·cited 37×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Appellant Buttler was convicted by jury of unlawful sale of marijuana and appealed on three grounds: constitutional classification of marijuana as a narcotic, denial of speedy trial, and failure to disclose witness names. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error on any
• Schaffer v. State
  769 So. 2d 496· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-10-18 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  Charles Schaffer was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to deliver based partly on hearsay testimony from officers regarding statements made by a confidential informant who did not testify at trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new tria
• United States v. York
  933 F.2d 1343· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's prior murder and insurance fraud was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and motive for the charged crimes, and that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant committed the prior murder.
• United States v. Winford Earl Brown
  899 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his prior state misdemeanor convictions were constitutionally invalid, and thus the district court did not err in using them for sentencing.
• Correll v. Dugger
  558 So. 2d 422· Fla.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  Correll challenges his conviction for first-degree murder of four persons and death sentence through habeas corpus and a motion for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida Supreme Court rejects all of Correll's claims, finding them either wit
• Moore v. Zant
  885 F.2d 1497· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 36×
• United States v. Snyder
  872 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the district court erred in admitting a deceased witness's grand jury testimony without sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, the error was harmless because the defendant later corroborated key parts of the testimony. The court also found no plain er
• Burns v. Clusen
  798 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.
• United States v. Patricia "Patty" Cree
  778 F.2d 474· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay statements made by a child victim under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24) and that the defendant waived her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by failing to call the child witness.
• United States v. Howard
  774 F.2d 838· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-09 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions for vote fraud, finding no reversible error in the indictment, evidence sufficiency, trial rulings, or prosecutorial conduct.
• Maugeri v. State
  460 So. 2d 975· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-12-18 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  Maugeri was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary. On appeal, the court upheld the admissibility of hearsay testimony from the victim's girlfriend that the victim told her he had stolen cocaine (not cash) from Maugeri's airplane, finding it admissible as a statement again
• United States v. Arvey Hawy Lyons and Vickie Elaine Lyons
  703 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a mistrial was not required when a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment after partial direct testimony, as the testimony was cumulative and the jury was instructed to disregard it. The court also held that a failure to hold a Rule 44(c) hearing on joint represe
• United States v. Mohammad Ali Bastanipour
  697 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's attempted pretrial appeal of a non-appealable order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction, and various failures to preserve evidence or disclose information did not violate the defendant's rights or warrant a mistrial or new trial.
• United States v. Brown
  692 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on all essential elements of the substantive offense in Count Eight, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial on that count. However, the court affirmed the convictions on the remaining
• United States v. Hughes A. Bagley
  641 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court should have remanded for a new trial due to extrinsic evidence potentially affecting the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Bienvenue
  632 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1980-09-30 ·cited 36×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntary, evidence obtained from an unlawful search was admissible under independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines, the admission of the wife's statement was harmless error, but the special parole term for a conspir
• United States v. Lutz
  621 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single fraudulent scheme, the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper, and any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Donald E. Belle. Appeal of Donald Belle
  593 F.2d 487· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 36×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction, violates the Confrontation Clause if it is powerfully incriminating and the jury cannot be expected to disregard it.
• Lynell Franklin v. Pleasant C. Shields
  569 F.2d 784· 4th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 36×
• United States v. James A. "Bubba" Mathis
  559 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-16 ·cited 36×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the ex-wife's prior statements were inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence because she was an available witness, and their admission violated the necessity requirement of Rule 803(24).
• United States v. Davis
  551 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning other bank robberies and hearsay statements was not prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Estremera
  531 F.2d 1103· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution, and the denial of a pretrial lineup was not reversible error.
• Lyell J. Thomlas v. Ward
  529 F.2d 916· 4th Cir.· 1975-11-24 ·cited 36×
  A teacher with a property interest in continued employment, deprived of due process in termination, is entitled to back pay from the improper termination until a constitutionally adequate hearing, even if reinstatement is no longer appropriate.
• United States v. Infelice
  506 F.2d 1358· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting tape recordings, finding the informant credible, and denying polygraph examinations, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Burke
  495 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that various evidentiary and procedural rulings by the trial court did not deny them a fair trial.
• Meyers v. Alldredge
  492 F.2d 296· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while due process applies to prison disciplinary hearings involving good time forfeiture, the presence of an official with substantial personal involvement in the underlying events on the disciplinary committee violates the right to an impartial tribunal. Howe
• United States v. Gray
  464 F.2d 632· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for transporting falsely made, forged, and counterfeited securities was supported by substantial evidence and the trial was free of prejudicial error.
• United States v. Millard Robert Beasley
  438 F.2d 1279· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-12 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), as the defendant's actions created an apparently dangerous situation and placed the teller in reasonable apprehension of harm, even if the device was ine
• Peters v. The United States
  408 F.2d 719· Ct. Cl.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the regulation allowed hearsay testimony, and it was unnecessary to fit within common law hearsay exceptions.
• Caton v. United States
  407 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for dismissal, severance, admitting the overheard conversation, instructing the jury on the failure to testify, or dismissing the indictment based on transfer to federal jurisdiction.
• Tanner v. United States
  401 F.2d 281· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-09 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States ex rel. Carl G. Gerchman v. Mahoney
  355 F.2d 302· 3d Cir.· 1966-01-11 ·cited 36×
• KAY v. United States
  255 F.2d 476· 4th Cir.· 1958-05-17 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a blood analysis certificate and the jury instructions regarding statutory presumptions were proper.
• United States v. Derick Bennett
  928 F.2d 1548· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 35×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in applying a firearm possession enhancement to the sentence because the firearm was possessed seven months after the drug offense. The court affirmed the conviction and other sentencing aspects.
• United States v. Lenwood Lewis White
  846 F.2d 678· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the indictment, when interpreted broadly in light of legislative history, sufficiently charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B).
• Bundy v. Louie L. Wainwright
  808 F.2d 1410· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 35×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
• United States v. Loyd
  743 F.2d 1555· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in not dismissing Count V against David and Hood due to double jeopardy, and that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard under the Jencks Act, requiring remand for further proceedings.
• United States v. Plotke
  725 F.2d 1303· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 35×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain convictions for substantive mail fraud counts and that procedural errors did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Falsia
  724 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 35×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence, refusing a specific jury instruction, denying a motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, or excluding juror declarations regarding deliberations.
• United States v. Bernal
  719 F.2d 1475· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that evidence of drug paraphernalia and cash found in the defendant's home was admissible, and incriminating statements made during a chance encounter with an agent were also admissible. However, the court reversed the firearm conviction due to insufficient evidenc
• United States v. Vadino
  680 F.2d 1329· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-19 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was valid, co-conspirator statements were admissible, the search of Stephans' home was lawful, and the denial of severance motions was proper. The jury instructions on entrapment were sufficient when considered as a whole.
• The Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney
  391 So. 2d 262· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-11-26 ·cited 35×
  The Everglades Club appealed an order compelling it to answer interrogatories in a mandamus proceeding brought by a member seeking reinstatement after expulsion. The court held that interrogatories seeking details about complaints against the member were not relevant to the issue
• United States v. Rosales
  584 F.2d 870· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's suppression of the co-conspirator statement, finding it was not clearly erroneous.
• McCLAIN v. State
  356 So. 2d 1256· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-02-22 ·cited 35×
  McCLain challenges his enhanced sentence as an habitual felony offender under Florida law, arguing the evidence was not presented with proper confrontation rights and specific findings were not made. The court affirms the sentence but remands for resentencing to correct defects i