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. Kasto
  584 F.2d 268· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the prosecutrix's reputation for unchastity and specific prior sexual acts with others was not an abuse of discretion, as such evidence is generally irrelevant and highly prejudicial to the issue of consent in a rape case.
• United States v. Herring
  582 F.2d 535· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the stop and search of the truck were based on probable cause, the admission of a witness statement did not violate discovery agreements, severance was not required, the arrest and search of Chapman's motel room were lawful, and in-court identifications were r
• United States v. Espinoza
  578 F.2d 224· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior similar act and that the stop of the truck was based on reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Price
  577 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that erroneous limitation of cross-examination is not per se reversible error, but is tested by the harmless error standard. The information sought by cross-examination was adequately presented to the jury through other means.
• United States v. Verne Allen Lyon
  567 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that evidence seized under a search warrant must be suppressed because the affidavit supporting the warrant failed to establish probable cause. The court affirmed the bail jumping conviction.
• United States v. Alvarez-Lopez
  559 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court committed prejudicial error of constitutional dimension by refusing to permit the defendant to inquire into the government's star witness' prior arrest for smuggling narcotics, thereby curtailing cross-examination.
• United States v. Cheung KIN Ping and Lai Mong Wah
  555 F.2d 1069· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial judge's instructions were proper, Cheung's double jeopardy and delay claims were meritless, and the admission of his statements, while potentially erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lai's claims regarding interpreter use and the handl
• United States v. Calhoun
  544 F.2d 291· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting testimony from a defendant's parole officer to identify him in a surveillance photograph was an abuse of discretion and not harmless error.
• United States v. LAM LEK Chong
  544 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial established a single conspiracy encompassing the Hong Kong venture and the May 30 delivery, and that any variance from proof of a separate January 30 conspiracy did not prejudice the defendants. The court also found no prosecuto
• United States v. Pasquale Charles Marzano
  537 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the FBI's active participation in the search and seizure of evidence by foreign officials violated the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, requiring suppression of the evidence.
• United States v. Gould
  536 F.2d 216· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-06 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of cocaine hydrochloride as a Schedule II controlled substance and instructing the jury to accept this fact as conclusive, nor did it err in refusing to strike a co-conspirator's testimony despite his in
• Cameron v. Fastoff
  543 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 30×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust state remedies for their federal constitutional claims, but affirmed the dismissal on the merits for the claim regarding probable cause for the search warrants.
• United States v. Wiley
  534 F.2d 659· 6th Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 30×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court denied the government's petition for rehearing, finding that while some arguments were supported by the record, others were still improper.
• United States ex rel. Frank Stachulak v. Coughlin
  520 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 30×
  Due process requires that the state prove a person is sexually dangerous beyond a reasonable doubt for commitment under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.
• United States v. Francene Wilson Isaacs and Isaac Washington
  516 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Prieto
  505 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
• Meller v. State OF Mo.
  431 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the defendant's 1952 guilty plea and waiver of counsel were voluntary and intelligent, and that the Boykin v. Alabama decision should not be applied retroactively.
• Alverez v. Turner
  422 F.2d 214· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that parole revocation hearings do not require the full due process rights afforded in criminal trials, such as confrontation, cross-examination, or compulsory process, but equal protection may be violated by discretionary practices regarding witnesses.
• United States v. Catino
  403 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1968-11-19 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting evidence, or denying the right to proceed pro se.
• United States v. Earnest Norman
  402 F.2d 73· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination or quashing writs for witnesses, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on alleged perjured tes
• Cohen v. The United States
  369 F.2d 976· Ct. Cl.· 1966-12-16 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that former customs inspectors were not entitled to recover back pay for illegal suspension and discharge, as their dismissals were based on substantiated charges of misconduct and false statements.
• United States v. Alpheus Holiday
  319 F.2d 775· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-28 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's contentions for setting aside his conviction were without merit and affirmed the denial of his motion.
• United States v. Valois
  915 F.3d 717· 11th Cir.· 2019-02-12 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no error in the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, denial of a mistrial, or handling of potential attorney conflicts of interest.
• State v. Belvin
  986 So. 2d 516· Fla.· 2008-05-01 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that portions of a breath test affidavit containing the technician's procedures and observations are testimonial evidence under Crawford v. Washington, and their admission without the technician's in-court testimony violates the Sixth Amendment's Co
• State v. Pinder
  678 So. 2d 410· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-07-22 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the State's petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order requiring in camera disclosure of sexual assault victim counselor communications and records. The court held that Florida's absolute sexual assault coun
• Miller v. Miller
  671 So. 2d 849· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-04-12 ·cited 29×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  In this family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's modification of child custody from father to mother, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to allow cross-examination of the Guardian Ad Litem whose report was p
• United States v. Miles Davis Saunders
  973 F.2d 1354· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that the Sentencing Guidelines were applied constitutionally.
• United States v. Cuevas
  847 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 29×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding legitimate currency exchange practices, which was material to the defendant's defense, violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense and necessitates a new trial.
• Chavis v. State OF N.C.
  637 F.2d 213· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 29×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's amended statement and psychiatric report violated the petitioners' due process rights.
• United States v. Maddox
  492 F.2d 104· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a co-defendant's confession, initially inadmissible against another defendant, becomes admissible if the co-defendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, curing any Bruton violation.
• United States v. Mobley
  421 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's prior trial testimony, subject to cross-examination, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause when the co-defendant is unavailable at the second trial. It also held that a victim's statement to an FBI agent was admis
• Barnes v. State
  124 So. 3d 904· Fla.· 2013-06-27 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  James Phillip Barnes, sentenced to death for a 1988 murder, appealed the denial of his initial Rule 3.851 motion for postconviction relief. Barnes claimed the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency evaluation before allowing him to plead guilty, despite his discl
• State v. Johnson
  982 So. 2d 672· Fla.· 2008-05-01 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) lab report identifying seized substances is testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington and cannot be admitted without the live testimony of the analyst who prepared it, even when offered as a
• Shiver v. State
  900 So. 2d 615· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-03-08 ·cited 28×
  Dennis Shiver appeals his DUI conviction, arguing that admission of breath test results via an affidavit violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington. The court agrees and reverses, holding that the affidavit contained testimonial hearsay regar
• Garcia v. State
  816 So. 2d 554· Fla.· 2002-04-18 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  Garcia was convicted of murdering Mario Amador and Roberto Alfonso and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions and death sentences, finding multiple critical errors including improper exclusion of impeachment evidence against the key witness Ribera,
• United States v. Osorio
  929 F.2d 753· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from the delayed disclosure of exculpatory evidence to warrant a new trial, as defense counsel effectively used the information and did not request a continuance.
• United States v. Noone
  913 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 28×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the jury instructions were proper, and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause was not infringed by the partial assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege by a witness.
• Leggett v. State
  565 So. 2d 315· Fla.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts must make specific findings of fact on the record that a child witness would suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm before allowing videotaped testimony pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes. The court reversed Leg
• United States v. Schmick
  904 F.2d 936· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was timely and that the evidence was sufficient to convict most appellants, but reversed one conviction due to Bruton error.
• Garlington v. O'Leary
  879 F.2d 277· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The admission of a codefendant's statement as a coconspirator's statement did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. DiCARO
  852 F.2d 259· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying 18 U.S.C. § 3147 to a defendant released on bond before the statute's effective date without prior notice of the enhanced penalties. The court affirmed the underlying convictions but vacated the sentence imposed under § 314
• United States v. Sunrhodes
  831 F.2d 1537· 10th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the full demands of the Confrontation Clause do not apply to restitution proceedings under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, and that the admission of telephone testimony and the order of restitution to the Indian Health Service were proper.
• United States v. Springer
  831 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated.
• Buckley v. Butler
  825 F.2d 895· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-27 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the record sufficiently demonstrated that the defendant's admission of prior convictions in the multiple bill proceeding was intelligent and voluntary, satisfying any applicable Boykin-type requirements.
• United States v. Solomon
  825 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that jury instructions adequately covered specific intent and willfulness, and that the admission of personal tax returns was proper. However, an increased sentence upon retrial was presumptively vindictive due to lack of objective justification in the record.
• United States v. Moore
  791 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of a deceased witness's excited utterance and a bid tabulation sheet as a business record were not abuses of discretion, and that the cross-examination and juror excusal were proper.
• United States v. Palow
  777 F.2d 52· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, informant testimony, jury instructions, admission of statements, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Ricks
  776 F.2d 455· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge holds that defense counsel's failure to seek clarification on jury selection procedures was unreasonable, and therefore the convictions should be affirmed.
• Barker v. Morris
  761 F.2d 1396· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 28×
  The admission of sworn, videotaped testimony from a deceased eyewitness did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the testimony was necessary and possessed particular guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Haber v. Louie L. Wainwright
  756 F.2d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regarding prior burglaries was likely harmless error, a remand is necessary to determine if the state failed to disclose an understanding or agreement with a key witness regarding prior crimes, which cou