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. Hansen
  583 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions or restricting cross-examination, and that most convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded the perjury convictions for Steven R. Hansen due to prejudicial
• United States v. Weaver
  565 F.2d 129· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery was supported by sufficient evidence and that his constitutional rights were not violated by pre-indictment delay, speedy trial issues, or the admission of other crimes evidence.
• United States ex rel. George Sims v. Allyn Sielaff
  563 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-31 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  A parolee's claim that a delay in their revocation hearing violates due process must be judged by the standards set forth in Barker v. Wingo, not by a presumption of prejudice based solely on the length of the delay.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  555 F.2d 308· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by independent surveillance, provided probable cause for Costano's arrest, and that the admission of Costano's statement against Gonzalez violated Bruton v. United States because it was not harmless error.
• United States v. Cavallaro
  553 F.2d 300· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove interstate kidnapping, that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, that the trial court did not err in limiting questioning about a witness's address, and that evidence of a subsequent crime was admissible.
• United States v. Segal
  534 F.2d 578· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that restricting voir dire questions about IRS employment and limiting cross-examination on unplayed tape recordings constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Johnson
  529 F.2d 581· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to make specific findings regarding Miranda warnings and waiver voluntariness did not require suppression, as the findings could be made nunc pro tunc. The court also held that the defendant's statements were admissible despite not si
• United States v. HAY
  527 F.2d 990· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial, that the admission of Swiss bank records and deposition testimony was harmless error due to his admissions, and that the evidence established a crime against the United States.
• Griffith v. Wyrick
  527 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A guilty plea induced by a belief of a specific sentence, especially when combined with claims of coercion, is involuntary if that belief is not unreasonable and not properly addressed by the court.
• United States v. Solomon Glover
  506 F.2d 291· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 26×
  A mistrial declared without the defendant's consent, even if to protect co-defendants from prejudicial statements, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause if not necessitated by a manifest necessity for the benefit of the defendant.
• United States v. Crane
  499 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1974-07-11 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a tandem trial procedure, where a single jury hears evidence against codefendants first and then hears evidence against the appellant, violates the appellant's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
• United States v. Hill
  481 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of a defense witness's prior inconsistent statement was not preserved for appeal because defense counsel failed to request a limiting instruction. The court also found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Dunham Concrete Prods., Inc.
  475 F.2d 1241· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the repealed statute, 15 U.S.C.A. § 32, did not grant immunity for testimony in private antitrust suits, as immunity could only be conferred by the government. The court also found no reversible error in the grand jury proceedings or trial.
• United States v. Sherman
  474 F.2d 303· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-01 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  A guilty plea is valid even if the defendant is not explicitly advised of the right against self-incrimination, as long as the record shows the plea was knowing and voluntary.
• United States v. Wilkerson
  469 F.2d 963· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-07 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if technically hearsay, was not reversible error when the declarant testified and was cross-examined, and that convictions for possession and transfer of counterfeit currency were permissible for distinct tra
• Birzon v. King
  469 F.2d 1241· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the parole condition itself was constitutional, the revocation hearing was fundamentally unfair and denied due process by relying solely on an unverified state parole report without allowing confrontation or disclosure of informants.
• United States v. DeCARLO
  458 F.2d 358· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-04 ·cited 26×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the victim's cause of death and in failing to instruct the jury on its relevance.
• United States v. Robinson
  449 F.2d 925· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-05 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellants received sufficient notice of the contempt charges and that the evidence supported their convictions for violating the preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Trudo
  449 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-21 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of redacted confessions in a joint trial did not violate the Bruton rule when the confessions, as presented to the jury, did not directly incriminate co-defendants.
• United States v. Anderson
  447 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-30 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, but the admission of tax assessor testimony regarding property values was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial for most counts. However, other evidence supported the convictions for Counts II and III.
• State v. R. E. F.
  251 So. 2d 672· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-08-17 ·cited 26×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court's dismissal of a rape indictment against a 16-year-old juvenile who had previously been adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for the same offense. The court holds that juvenile delinquency proceedings are civil in nature and do not b
• Walker R. Wade v. United States
  441 F.2d 1046· D.C. Cir.· 1971-01-18 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court should affirm the convictions because the defendant's absence was voluntary, or alternatively, no prejudice resulted from his absence.
• United States v. Williams
  424 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that admitting expert testimony based on unintroduced records violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, requiring reversal of one conviction. Other convictions were affirmed.
• Townsend v. Henderson
  405 F.2d 324· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-26 ·cited 26×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  A confession obtained from a prisoner in solitary confinement, under circumstances implying further punishment, is involuntary and inadmissible. The admission of such a confession in a joint trial, even with limiting instructions, violates the co-defendant's Sixth Amendment right
• Branch v. State
  212 So. 2d 29· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-05-01 ·cited 26×
  Horace Branch and Dale Kelley, a police chief and patrolman, were convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. On appeal, they challenged the denial of change of venue and Branch challenged the admission of Kelley's confession that implicated him, as well as contending
• Beard v. State
  104 So. 2d 680· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-07-24 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confrontation
  Two defendants were convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The court affirmed Jernigan's conviction but reversed Beard's conviction, holding that the trial court erred in denying Beard the right to closing argument, and that Beard's cross-examination of his co-defen
• Curtis v. Rives
  123 F.2d 936· D.C. Cir.· 1941-12-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of denial of confrontation and compulsory process rights were not supported by the record, and thus the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• United States v. Salomon E. Melgen
  967 F.3d 1250· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-31 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions on materiality, admitting summary charts, or denying a new trial, and that the sentence was reasonable.
• State v. Famiglietti
  817 So. 2d 901· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-05-08 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a criminal defendant cannot access a crime victim's privileged psychiatric records, even upon showing they contain material information necessary to the defense. The court rejected both statutory and constitutional bases for in
• Jenkins v. State
  803 So. 2d 783· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-11-30 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jenkins appeals his civil commitment under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the admission of extensive hearsay evidence that denied him due process and his right to confront witnesses. The court reverses, holding that committing Jenkins largely on untested hearsay—including
• Purcell v. State
  735 So. 2d 579· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-23 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge erred by refusing to permit defense counsel to impeach a key prosecution witness by showing bias.
• United States v. Castro
  887 F.2d 988· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give a specific unanimity instruction on the objects of the conspiracy, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance
• United States v. Jenkins
  884 F.2d 433· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court improperly limited cross-examination regarding a witness's affidavit, but the error was harmless. The indictment was sufficiently specific, but the restitution condition on probation was unlawful. The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence
• United States v. Hal Long
  866 F.2d 402· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions of Long and Kasch, finding that Long's consent to search and pre-arrest statements were voluntary, and that venue was proper for Kasch's possession charge under an aiding and abetting theory.
• Freeman v. Rideout
  808 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The filing of unfounded charges against a prison inmate does not, per se, constitute a constitutional violation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provided that the inmate receives the constitutionally required due process protections at a subsequent disciplinary hearing.
• In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation BY AN Investigating Comm. OF the Jud. Council OF the Eleventh Cir. Betty Ann Williams & Alan Ehrlich v. Mercer
  783 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has exclusive original jurisdiction to enforce or quash subpoenas issued under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, and the Act's subpoena provisions are constitutional.
• Miller v. A.A. Stagner and R.L. Pulley
  757 F.2d 988· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from an in camera juror disqualification hearing.
• United States v. McMAHON
  715 F.2d 498· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that appellants' challenges to jury instructions and the denial of a hearing on standing were waived or barred by prior rulings, and that the government's failure to produce psychiatric reports did not violate Brady or the Sixth Amendment.
• United States v. Beason
  690 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-15 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for unlawful possession of unregistered firearms, and that the Bureau's certificate of non-registration was properly authenticated. However, the conviction for failure to pay the making tax was reversed due
• DeBENEDICTIS v. Louie L. Wainwright & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Fla.
  674 F.2d 841· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the petitioners' habeas corpus petitions were properly denied because the information was not fatally defective and the admission of certain testimony did not violate their constitutional rights.
• United States v. Watson
  599 F.2d 1149· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government had a sufficient prosecutorial interest in delaying the unsealing of an indictment to avoid tipping off other defendants, and that the defendant did not suffer substantial actual prejudice from this delay.
• United States v. Colyer
  571 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 25×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding the victim's homosexuality was harmless error, and the Master Charge tickets were properly admitted as business records.
• United States v. Lemon
  497 F.2d 854· 10th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while the government may have been on notice of potential changes in testimony, the impeachment of witnesses Robinson and Paden was proper or harmless error, and no plain error affecting substantial rights occurred.
• United States v. Lynch
  499 F.2d 1011· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in determining the witness was unavailable, and therefore the admission of her prior testimony was proper.
• The Blackwell Coll. OF Bus. v. The Attorney Gen. of the United States
  454 F.2d 928· D.C. Cir.· 1971-09-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the withdrawal of the school's approved status by the INS was unlawful due to substantial procedural defects and a lack of due process.
• United States v. Hernandez
  441 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while admitting post-arrest statements of co-conspirators was error, it was harmless in light of other evidence and testimony. The court also found no error in admitting background information from informants or in the jury charge.
• Jackson v. State
  127 So. 3d 447· Fla.· 2013-09-19 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  Michael Jackson seeks postconviction relief and habeas corpus review after conviction for first-degree murder, robbery, and kidnapping of an elderly couple in 2005. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial of relief, holding that Jackson failed to demonstrate ineffective assi
• Brower v. State
  684 So. 2d 1378· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-12-11 ·cited 24×
  Richard Brower was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated burglary, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court failed to follow the procedure mandated by Coney v. State for ensuring the defendant's knowing and voluntary waiver of his right
• Garcia v. State
  659 So. 2d 388· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-07-19 ·cited 24×
  Rolando Garcia was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child based largely on hearsay statements made by the child victim to various adults. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to make the case-specific findings of reliability required by Florida
• United States v. Munoz
  16 F.3d 1116· 11th Cir.· 1994-03-17 ·cited 24×
  Eight defendants were convicted of marijuana importation, conspiracy, and possession with intent to distribute following an unsuccessful attempt to offload approximately 18,000 pounds of marijuana from a tugboat (the Turtola) into fast boats in the Gulf of Mexico. The appellants