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

• Moore v. Kemp
  824 F.2d 847· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 33×
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the petition.
• United States v. Dadanian
  818 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no plain error in admitting plea agreement terms, no ineffective assistance of counsel, sufficient evidence for mail fraud and Travel Act convictions, and that the gambling business violated local law. The Sixth Amendment rights were no
• United States v. Owens
  789 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the victim's out-of-court identification was inadmissible hearsay because the victim's memory loss prevented effective cross-examination, violating the Confrontation Clause. However, the error was deemed harmless due to other evidence.
• United States v. DiMARIA
  727 F.2d 265· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge held that even if the exclusion of the defendant's statement was an error, it was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Washington
  705 F.2d 489· D.C. Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that while the defendant's right to be present during a portion of the voir dire was violated, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and other grounds for appeal were without merit.
• United States v. Taylor
  508 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-21 ·cited 33×
  The admission of a co-defendant's statement implicating the defendant, in violation of a prior agreement and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, constitutes reversible error unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does not 'open the door' to such evidence i
• Shuler v. Louie L. Wainwright
  491 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the alleged faking of footprint casts, as the state court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the failure to voluntarily disclose the victim's statement
• Favre v. Henderson
  464 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 33×
• United States v. Aloisio
  440 F.2d 705· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and various procedural and constitutional challenges were without merit.
• Monserrate v. State
  232 So. 2d 444· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-03-03 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  Raul Monserrate was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin after a trial in which the state relied on testimony from a detective who claimed the defendant sold heroin to a confidential informant. The trial court refused to disclose the informant's identity despite the defenda
• Reed v. Beto
  343 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the petitioner had not technically exhausted state remedies, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had consistently ruled on the issue, and no intervening Supreme Court decision suggested a change, thus the state remedy was not effectively available.
• United States v. Diosme Fernandez Hano
  922 F.3d 1272· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-30 ·cited 32×
  Diosme Fernandez Hano and Reinaldo Arrastia-Cardoso were convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy for stealing $1.7 million from an armored truck in 2009. The Eleventh Circuit addressed two issues of first impression: whether a five-year statute of limitations for DNA-implic
• Peters v. State
  984 So. 2d 1227· Fla.· 2008-05-01 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rule established in Crawford v. Washington, which prohibits testimonial hearsay in criminal prosecutions without cross-examination opportunity, does not apply to probation or community control revocation
• Barron v. State
  990 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-08-22 ·cited 32×
  John Lee Barron was convicted of second degree felony murder, attempted armed robbery, and attempted second degree murder arising from an armed robbery of Ed Cody's home in September 2000. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Barron could be held liable as a
• Johnson v. State
  929 So. 2d 4· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-12-30 ·cited 32×
  Johnson was convicted of drug possession and related crimes based partly on an FDLE lab report admitted without the analyst's testimony. The court held that the lab report was testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington and reversed the convictions because the analyst was av
• United States v. Harris
  908 F.2d 728· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that two juror remarks were ambiguous and did not necessitate further investigation into juror misconduct.
• United States v. Nestor Julio Perez-Garcia
  904 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 32×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing, finding that while the admission of a codefendant's statement was erroneous and violated the confrontation clause, it did not constitute plain error requiring reversal due to sufficient independent evidence. Prior acts
• United States v. Barnerd
  887 F.2d 841· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not violate the separation of powers, due process, or the Presentment Clause, and affirmed the sentence imposed.
• United States v. Wheat
  813 F.2d 1399· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-02 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel due to potential conflicts of interest, even with a waiver, and that the defendant's absence from an ex parte conference with his attorney was harmless error.
• United States v. Tindle
  808 F.2d 319· 4th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 32×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery, continuances, witness testimony, or cross-examination limitations, but remanded for a Batson inquiry into potential jury exclusion.
• Puiatti v. State
  495 So. 2d 128· Fla.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  Carl Puiatti and Robert Glock appeal their convictions and death sentences for the kidnapping, robbery, and murder of a woman in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirms both convictions and sentences, rejecting arguments that the joint trial violated the confrontation clause a
• United States v. Vretta
  790 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Mark Hauser's death and Vretta's threats against Allen Hauser, as the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and the evidence was admissible under hearsay exceptions.
• United States v. Silva
  781 F.2d 106· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the mail fraud convictions and that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Ferguson
  776 F.2d 217· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant waived his Speedy Trial Act rights by failing to object, that the expungement of prior convictions was validly handled, and that the evidence and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. McDANIEL
  773 F.2d 242· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that statements by alleged coconspirators were properly admitted under the coconspirator hearsay exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that evidence of other crimes and seized items was also admissible.
• United States v. Hunt
  749 F.2d 1078· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that hearsay evidence, though generally inadmissible to prove predisposition, may be admitted to show the reasonableness and good faith of a government investigation when the defendant challenges the investigation's conduct.
• United States v. Briscoe
  742 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the charges were not multiplicitous, the evidence was sufficient for attempted arson, and the admission of a co-defendant's statement was proper.
• United States v. Kimble
  719 F.2d 1253· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that various alleged errors, including limitations on cross-examination and the admission of certain evidence, were either harmless or properly handled by the trial court.
• Witt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1069· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×
  Johnny Paul Witt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1973 killing of an 11-year-old boy. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Witt's challenges to the admission of his confession, the Florida Sup
• United States v. Barnes
  681 F.2d 717· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof, that severance was not required, and that venue and sufficiency of evidence were properly established for all counts. The court also found that the trial court's instructions cured any pre
• Lenza v. Wyrick
  665 F.2d 804· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, that the hearsay testimony was admissible under the state of mind exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that there was sufficie
• United States ex rel. Melvin Haywood v. Wolff
  658 F.2d 455· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that unreliable witness testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Lawson
  653 F.2d 299· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony based on hearsay did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights because he had adequate access to the underlying information for cross-examination, and lay testimony on sanity was properly admitted under the Federal Rule
• United States v. Bruner
  657 F.2d 1278· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of prescriptions under the business records exception or coconspirator rule was proper, and that the failure to give immediate limiting instructions on prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Palumbo
  639 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 32×
  A third party's statement inculpating the accused is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) if it is against the declarant's penal interest and corroborated by circumstances indicating trustworthiness, provided it does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
• United States v. Sarmiento-Perez
  633 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 32×
  The custodial confession of a non-testifying, separately tried coconspirator, which directly implicates the accused in the crime, is inadmissible against the accused as a statement against penal interest under Fed.R.Ev. 804(b)(3) because it is not sufficiently reliable.
• Burr v. Sullivan
  618 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 32×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
• United States v. Garris
  616 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an FBI agent's testimony regarding a statement made by the defendant's sister, but that convictions for bank robbery and armed bank robbery arising from the same transaction should be merged.
• United States v. Williams
  592 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred by restricting cross-examination of a key witness and by failing to properly consider the suggestiveness of identification procedures.
• United States v. Fitzgerald
  579 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury had sufficient basis to find a single overarching conspiracy and that overt acts within the statute of limitations period were in furtherance of the conspiracy's objectives. It also found that Leahu was a bribeable official under Indiana law and that
• Phillips v. Wyrick
  558 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony through a prosecutor's testimony was permissible under the confrontation clause exception when the witness invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• United States v. Medico
  557 F.2d 309· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-25 ·cited 32×
  The admission of double hearsay identification of the getaway car, lacking trustworthiness and opportunity for cross-examination, constituted an abuse of discretion and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Swainson
  548 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator tapes was proper, even with an acquittal on the conspiracy charge, because independent evidence established a prima facie case of conspiracy, and that the perjury convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
• Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle
  545 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence did not violate due process because a strong link was established between the defendant and the other offenses, satisfying the fundamental fairness standard.
• Auckland Holmes v. United States Bd. OF Parole & United States Bureau of Prisons
  541 F.2d 1243· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 32×
  A federal prisoner is entitled to procedural due process before being classified as a "Special Offender" because this designation significantly impacts opportunities for parole, furlough, and transfer, constituting a "grievous loss."
• United States v. Morris
  532 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-27 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Attorney General's designation of a Special Attorney was sufficiently specific under 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a 'juice joint' or in denying access t
• United States v. Hargis Ray Murray
  527 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while a conspiracy was proven, the evidence was insufficient to connect four of the appellants to it, thus reversing their conspiracy convictions. However, convictions for substantive offenses were affirmed where evidence supported them.
• LEE v. State
  318 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-07-31 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  A defendant convicted of heroin possession and sale appealed the trial court's exclusion of testimony about a pending robbery charge against the State's paid informant witness. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the defendant had a constitutional right to cross-examin
• United States v. Brasco
  516 F.2d 816· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy charges, the prosecution was not time-barred, and the trial court did not err in admitting prior testimony or denying a new trial.
• United States v. Scott
  511 F.2d 15· 8th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions and admitting challenged evidence, affirming the conviction.