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. Johnson
  971 F.2d 562· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·cited 27×
  The court held that transfers of funds from investors to the defendant's account did not constitute transactions in 'criminally derived property' under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 because the defendant had not yet 'obtained' the proceeds. However, transfers from the defendant's account to i
• United States v. David A. Sturman (90-3147)
  951 F.2d 1466· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the 'defraud' clause of 18 U.S.C. § 371 was applicable to the broad conspiracy charged, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of David Sturman and Ralph Levine. The court also found that the willfulness element for Reuben Sturman's fa
• United States v. Farmer
  923 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that double jeopardy and collateral estoppel did not bar retrial after a mistrial, the district court had jurisdiction to proceed, evidentiary rulings were proper, and the sentencing appeal was moot.
• United States v. Smith
  893 F.2d 1573· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a calendar/drug ledger was admissible as a co-conspirator statement under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) because the government established it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and its author was reasonably certain. Other arguments regarding the
• United States v. Mohamed Salim
  855 F.2d 944· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 27×
  A deposition taken abroad under foreign law, even with procedural differences from U.S. standards, may be admissible in a criminal trial if the defendant had an opportunity for similar cross-examination and the foreign procedures are not so unreliable as to violate fundamental fa
• Puiatti v. State
  521 So. 2d 1106· Fla.· 1988-03-17 ·cited 27×
  The introduction of a codefendant's confession, even if it implicates the defendant, is harmless error when the defendant has also confessed and the confessions interlock, especially when a joint confession resolves inconsistencies.
• United States v. Carl E. Banks & Arthester McCruiston
  687 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 27×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the admissibility of prior convictions for appeal by not obtaining a definitive ruling from the trial court. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the voir dire or denying sev
• United States v. Ocampo
  650 F.2d 421· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-02 ·cited 27×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony identifying a defendant as a known drug trafficker was reversible error, but upheld the convictions of other defendants based on sufficient evidence and proper procedures.
• United States v. Martinez
  616 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 27×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of evidence, and the failure to provide an interpreter did not warrant reversal.
• Hinton v. State
  347 So. 2d 1079· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-07-06 ·cited 27×
  Jeff Davis Hinton was convicted of aggravated assault for attacking his brother with a hatchet. On appeal, he challenged the admission of hearsay testimony from the deceased victim identifying him as the assailant, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The
• LaFRANCE v. Bohlinger
  499 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-28 ·cited 27×
  A witness's prior statement used for impeachment, if claimed to be coerced, requires a judicial inquiry into its voluntariness, but the issue of voluntariness need not be submitted to the jury.
• Julian v. Desue, IV
  908 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-07-25 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  Desue challenges his armed robbery conviction and life sentence as a prison releasee reoffender, arguing that using Department of Corrections records to establish his release date violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington. The First District
• Curtis v. State
  876 So. 2d 13· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-05-18 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  Juan Curtis was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery in the shooting death of Mary Ann Stephens during a robbery. The court reversed his convictions, holding that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by excluding a confession from Brento
• Cumbie v. Singletary
  991 F.2d 715· 11th Cir.· 1993-05-26 ·cited 26×
  Kenneth Cumbie was convicted in 1987 of attempting to sexually assault his five-year-old stepdaughter after she testified via one-way closed circuit television outside his presence. The Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court violated Cumbie's Sixth Amendment right to face-to-
• Long v. State
  610 So. 2d 1276· Fla.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  Robert Joe Long appeals his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Virginia Johnson. The Florida Supreme Court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce edited portions of a CBS videotaped interview withou
• Jones v. Dugger
  928 F.2d 1020· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the claims procedurally barred, not violated, or foreclosed by precedent.
• State v. Ochoa
  576 So. 2d 854· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-03-19 ·cited 26×
  The State appeals the trial court's dismissal of sexual battery charges against Ivan Ochoa. The trial court excluded the minor victims' statements to a physician as inadmissible hearsay and ruled the State failed to establish corpus delicti. The appellate court reverses, holding
• Kopko v. State
  577 So. 2d 956· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-02-14 ·cited 26×
  Kopko was convicted of sexual battery and lewd assault on his nine-year-old stepdaughter based on her testimony and multiple out-of-court statements recounted by a CPT counselor and physician. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that when a child victim testifi
• United States v. RAY
  930 F.2d 1368· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines is impermissible without a mitigating circumstance, even if the case is deemed 'highly unusual'.
• United States v. Kelly
  892 F.2d 255· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions of unavailable foreign witnesses, taken with defense counsel present and a phone line for consultation, did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court also held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction de
• United States ex rel. Robert E. LEE v. Flannigan
  884 F.2d 945· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial.
• United States v. Petitjean
  883 F.2d 1341· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding a duplicitous indictment, insufficient evidence, confrontation clause violations, and sentencing procedures were without merit, affirming his convictions.
• United States v. Lynn
  856 F.2d 430· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly circumscribing cross-examination regarding a witness's polygraph examination and by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction, thereby impairing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Angelos Markopoulos
  848 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 26×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that while some evidence was improperly admitted and jury instructions were flawed, these errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal of the conspiracy conviction.
• Leatrice Little v. Armontrout
  835 F.2d 1240· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to appoint an expert in hypnosis for an indigent defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
• United States v. Woolbright
  831 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, the inventory search was reasonable, and the challenged evidence was admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• United States v. Valles-Valencia
  811 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence discovered after an initial arrest, even if the arrest was illegal, is admissible if the illegality was not the 'but for' cause of the discovery. It also held that a conspiracy conviction cannot stand if all co-conspirators are acquitted.
• United States v. Bruno
  809 F.2d 1097· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a scheme to bribe public officials can constitute a scheme to defraud for wire fraud purposes, and that a variance between the indictment and proof of fraud was not prejudicial where evidence supported conspiracy to bribe.
• Lacy v. Gardino
  791 F.2d 980· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that while a Sixth Amendment violation occurred, it was harmless error because the unmasked information was cumulative and did not contribute to the verdict.
• United States v. Rengifo
  789 F.2d 975· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that tape recordings and their transcripts, even in a foreign language, are admissible if properly authenticated and that sending transcripts to the jury room is permissible within the trial court's discretion, especially when the jury does not understand the langu
• United States v. Wright
  783 F.2d 1091· D.C. Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 26×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding no abuse of discretion in denying severance motions and no substantial prejudice from evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Accetturo
  783 F.2d 382· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Bail Reform Act is not facially unconstitutional for failing to contain a specific time limitation on pretrial detention.
• United States v. Rinke
  778 F.2d 581· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and Travel Act violations, but remanded one count for further findings on the 'business enterprise' element. The court also held that the use of notes to refresh memory was permissible and that evidence obtained after illegal surveill
• United States v. Huber
  772 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 26×
  The admission of an out-of-court statement by a coconspirator violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Leonicio Fernando Cruz
  765 F.2d 1020· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the English transcript of Spanish conversations was properly admitted as substantive evidence, and while the admission of hearsay statements was error, it was harmless due to sufficient other evidence.
• United States v. Quezada
  754 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the warrant of deportation, containing the appellant's thumbprint and corroborated by agent testimony regarding INS procedures, sufficiently established the "arrest" requirement for an illegal reentry conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
• United States v. Bautista
  731 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search of the vehicle was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, the co-conspirator's statements were properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Tyars v. Finner
  709 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-21 ·cited 26×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the opinion is a concurrence.
• In re Kitchen
  706 F.2d 1266· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred by not allowing the defendant to be heard and make an offer of proof before adjudging him in contempt.
• United States v. Arnott
  704 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-08 ·cited 26×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination scope, admitting co-conspirator statements, or admitting weapons evidence, and that no fundamental rights were affected by the rulings.
• United States v. Sudderth
  681 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed LeCompte's convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute the first marihuana load, but reversed his conviction for the second load due to insufficient evidence. Sudderth's convictions were affirmed.
• Kyle v. Hanberry
  677 F.2d 1386· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that due process requires prison disciplinary committees to make a good faith inquiry into the reliability of confidential informants when imposing severe sanctions, and the record must reflect this inquiry.
• Ford v. Strickland
  676 F.2d 434· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 26×
  Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting a wounded police officer during an armed robbery and sentenced to death in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, rejecting Ford's seven constitutional challenges to his convi
• United States v. Distler
  671 F.2d 954· 6th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of grand jury testimony as substantive evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) was constitutional, and that expert testimony on oil matching using gas chromatography was properly admitted.
• Emmett Eugene Cloud, Jr. v. Thomas
  627 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-10 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Sixth Amendment does not grant a constitutional right to impeach a witness's general credibility with evidence of prior bad acts not resulting in a conviction.
• United States v. Stephens
  609 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-07 ·cited 26×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Counsel in a criminal case may waive a client's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by stipulating to the admission of evidence, provided the defendant does not dissent and the decision is a legitimate trial tactic.
• Rado v. State OF Conn.
  607 F.2d 572· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-03 ·cited 26×
  The court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the state's attorney's recitation of a witness's prior statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause and that the questioning of the witness, even with the expectation of a Fifth Amendment invocation, did not con
• United States v. Digeronimo
  598 F.2d 746· 2d Cir.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 26×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Convictions for receiving and possessing stolen goods are multiplicitous with Hobbs Act robbery convictions when the possession is of the goods stolen in the robbery, and thus must be vacated. Other convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Beacher Drell Roach
  590 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the absence of counsel and a transcript at a preliminary hearing requires a remand to determine prejudice, and vacated a conviction based on Supreme Court precedent regarding multiple punishments for the same offense.
• United States v. Roberts
  583 F.2d 1173· 10th Cir.· 1978-10-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the introduction of codefendant's statements did not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and that a warrantless search of an automobile was reasonable under the circumstances.