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

• Egger v. United States
  509 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 32×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a defendant's failure to object to alleged constitutional errors at trial generally waives the right to raise them in a collateral attack, unless the errors are so fundamental as to deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Payseur
  501 F.2d 966· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the issue of entrapment to the jury and that the jury instruction regarding reliance on a single truthful witness, while imperfect, did not constitute plain error.
• Linroy Davis v. Heyd
  479 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 32×
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
• Nieves v. Oswald
  477 F.2d 1109· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 32×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to convene a three-judge court, as the claims regarding prison disciplinary procedures implicated state-wide policy and raised substantial constitutional questions.
• Stinson v. Turner
  473 F.2d 913· 10th Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the record affirmatively showed the guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, satisfying due process requirements.
• United States v. De Stefano
  476 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The appeal is dismissed as moot due to the defendant's death, and the conviction is vacated.
• Farrell v. Lewin Joel, Jr.
  437 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1971-01-20 ·cited 32×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
• Sendejas v. United States
  428 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-03 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that appellants lacked standing to challenge the search, the trial court did not err in refusing an entrapment instruction, hearsay evidence was admissible, confrontation rights were not violated, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Dickens
  417 F.2d 958· 8th Cir.· 1969-11-10 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, finding the error in restricting cross-examination was not prejudicial.
• White v. United States
  415 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-18 ·cited 32×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling discovery, denying severance, or denying access to grand jury testimony, and that the introduction of a codefendant's confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
• Cureton v. United States
  396 F.2d 671· D.C. Cir.· 1968-04-18 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary absence after a trial has commenced in non-capital cases does not prevent the trial's continuation, but the record must clearly establish the voluntary nature of the absence and the defendant's awareness of their rights and obligations.
• Belvin v. United States
  273 F.2d 583· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-05 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment and sentence.
• Love v. State
  971 So. 2d 280· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-01-09 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  Robert Love appeals five convictions arising from a traffic stop in Pahokee, claiming the police used the stop as retaliation for his public criticism of their department. The appellate court reversed due to fundamental error in jury instructions and prejudicial evidentiary rulin
• United States v. Goldfaden
  959 F.2d 1324· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-22 ·cited 31×
  The Government's submission of memoranda advocating for specific guideline applications violated its plea agreement promise to make no recommendation, constituting plain error.
• Creech v. A.J. Arave
  947 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The panel erred in holding that Idaho's statutory aggravating factor of 'utter disregard for human life' is unconstitutionally vague, failing to give adequate deference to the Idaho Supreme Court's limiting construction.
• Russell v. Rolfs
  893 F.2d 1033· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state is estopped from arguing procedural default because it previously represented to the federal court that an adequate and available state remedy existed, which contradicted its later argument that the petitioner was procedurally barred in state court.
• United States v. Davis
  890 F.2d 1373· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for extortion and upholding evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Parcel OF Real Prop. Known AS 6109 Grubb Rd.
  886 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the wife could avoid forfeiture by proving lack of consent, even if she had knowledge of her husband's illegal activities, and that hearsay evidence improperly admitted to rebut her innocent owner defense required vacating the forfeiture order.
• United States v. Allen
  797 F.2d 1395· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of all three defendants, finding no merit in their various claims regarding sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, sentencing, and suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Panas
  738 F.2d 278· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that statements made by a co-conspirator are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule if independent evidence shows it is more likely than not that a conspiracy existed, and that admission of such statements, along with other challenged evi
• United States v. Sutton
  732 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice were supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial court rulings did not constitute an abuse of discretion or reversible error.
• Martin v. Maggio
  711 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the conviction or sentence.
• Mattes v. Gagnon
  700 F.2d 1096· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the admission of prior testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury instructions on intent did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof.
• United States v. Gambler
  662 F.2d 834· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination regarding the witness's prior civil suits, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not warrant reversal of the convictions.
• Furlow v. United States
  644 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated, despite delays caused by a natural disaster.
• McGHEE v. Draper
  564 F.2d 902· 10th Cir.· 1977-10-03 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict against the plaintiff on her liberty interest claim, as the evidence could support a finding that the school board's actions imposed a stigma foreclosing future employment opportunities. The court also found that pr
• LEE v. State
  324 So. 2d 694· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-01-13 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  Joseph Lee, a city mayor and commissioner, was convicted of requesting/accepting a bribe and conspiracy. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, including witness intimidation, allowing false testimony to go uncorrected, and improper plea
• Coleman v. The Honorable Arthur L. Burnett
  477 F.2d 1187· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-14 ·cited 31×
  The court should have allowed broader cross-examination at the preliminary hearing to probe probable cause.
• United States ex rel. Rogelio Nieves Negron v. The State OF NEW York
  434 F.2d 386· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-15 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the lack of adequate translation for a non-English speaking defendant rendered his trial constitutionally infirm, violating due process.
• Dunn v. Cal. Dep't OF Corr.
  401 F.2d 340· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-08 ·cited 31×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that a state prisoner's parole revocation is not a federal constitutional question unless arbitrary or capricious, and the prisoner's claims did not meet this standard.
• Victorino v. State
  127 So. 3d 478· Fla.· 2013-10-10 ·cited 30×
  Troy Victorino was convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal of his postconviction relief motion, he challenged numerous aspects of his trial, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington and a constit
• Bowles v. State
  979 So. 2d 182· Fla.· 2008-02-14 ·cited 30×
  Gary Ray Bowles appeals the denial of his Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and petitions for habeas corpus following his death sentence for murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the postconviction court's rejection of all claims, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel,
• United States v. Pryce
  938 F.2d 1343· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 30×
  The court should not consider the harmless error doctrine when the government fails to argue it, as this would violate the adversary system and judicial neutrality.
• Raymon J. Melton v. City OF Okla. City
  928 F.2d 920· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court's instruction on stigmatization was erroneous, but found the error harmless. The dissent also addressed the falsity requirement and pre-termination hearing rights.
• Davis v. State
  562 So. 2d 431· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-06-18 ·cited 30×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that admitting a laboratory report as a business record in a probation revocation hearing does not violate due process or the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, even if the technician who performed the test is unavailable for cross-examination.
• United States v. Roberts
  881 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and that various sentencing and procedural challenges lacked merit.
• Emilio Jimenez v. State
  535 So. 2d 343· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-12-16 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove an agreement and intent to commit the offense, which are necessary elements for a conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Zavala
  839 F.2d 523· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an indictment charging violations of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) is insufficient if it fails to specify the controlled substance involved and the precise felony facilitated by the use of the communication device, and impermissibly charges in the disjunctive.
• United States v. Guinan
  836 F.2d 350· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of the unavailable witness's grand jury testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) was proper and did not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, as it possessed sufficient indicia of trustworthiness and corroboration.
• United States v. Baresh
  790 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 30×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, restrictions on cross-examination, contempt citation of counsel, or in refusing to grant a mistrial. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and sentencing did not violate the double jeopa
• United States v. Smith
  780 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of the defendant's mid-trial request to represent himself was not an error under the circumstances.
• United States v. Erick Mitchell
  778 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that transporting a woman across state lines for the purpose of rape constitutes an "immoral purpose" under the Mann Act, and that successive federal prosecution after a state acquittal does not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Darwin
  757 F.2d 1193· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 30×
  Statements obtained from a defendant without counsel during the investigation of a separate offense are admissible in a trial for that separate offense, provided there is no bad faith or pretext by the government.
• Kaplan v. State
  451 So. 2d 1386· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-06-13 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  Evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct is admissible under Florida's rape shield statute only when it establishes a pattern of conduct or behavior so distinctive and closely resembling the defendant's version of the alleged encounter that it tends to prove consent, and a sin
• United States v. Farnsworth
  729 F.2d 1158· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-14 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting lay opinion identification testimony from parole officers was not an abuse of discretion, nor did it violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, provided the district court carefully limited the scope of examination to avoid revea
• Urquhart v. A.L. Lockhart
  726 F.2d 1316· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, affirming the judgment.
• United States v. McWILLIAMS
  730 F.2d 1218· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A defendant cannot challenge a federal firearms conviction based on the invalidity of a prior predicate felony conviction, even if that conviction is constitutionally infirm.
• Morgan v. State
  415 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1982-03-18 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  Floyd Morgan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for stabbing fellow inmate Joe Saylor to death in a Florida prison in 1977. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Morgan's arguments that the trial court committed reversi
• United States v. Nunez
  668 F.2d 1116· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 30×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege on a collateral matter, in refusing to grant a mistrial based on a witness's mention of protective custody, or in refusing to dismiss the indictment based on grand jury p
• United States v. Nelson
  603 F.2d 42· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court coconspirator statements was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.