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. Steed
  465 F.2d 1310· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements, despite a Bruton violation, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming admissible evidence of guilt. The court also found no merit in other procedural and constitutional claims.
• Intercontinental Indus., Inc. v. Am. Stock Exch. & Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  452 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-20 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the SEC's order allowing the American Stock Exchange to delist INI's stock, finding that INI violated its listing agreement by disseminating misleading information and that its corrective actions were not prompt.
• United States v. LE Pera
  443 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-10 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting counterfeiting and conspiracy was valid, affirming the trial court's rulings on pre-trial motions, jury selection, evidence admissibility, and the election of counts.
• United States v. Calarco
  424 F.2d 657· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, potentially violating due process by allowing hearsay to be used to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• DeCARLO v. United States
  422 F.2d 237· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that evidence of prior smuggling and marihuana use was admissible and that the appellants' other contentions, including self-incrimination and confrontation clause issues, were without merit.
• United States v. Carlson
  423 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the insanity defense, nor did it err in striking the testimony related to that defense. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of a tape recording, the curtailment of cros
• Millard v. Harris
  406 F.2d 964· D.C. Cir.· 1968-11-08 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Sexual Psychopath Act, when interpreted to mean 'not mentally ill,' is not applicable to the appellant because his past sexual misconduct does not demonstrate a likelihood of future dangerousness sufficient to justify commitment under the statute.
• United States v. Lipowitz
  401 F.2d 591· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the introduction of eyewitness identification testimony and co-defendant statements did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, and any prejudice was harmless error.
• Flores v. United States
  379 F.2d 905· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 24×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial when a co-defendant's statement, which implicated the defendant, was introduced at trial.
• United States ex rel. Fred Floyd v. Wilkins
  367 F.2d 990· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-20 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession without redaction, coupled with insufficient evidence and ineffective limiting instructions, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendmen
• Sheiner v. State
  82 So. 2d 657· Fla.· 1955-07-29 ·cited 24×
  Leo Sheiner, a lawyer in Florida, was disbarred based on his refusal to answer questions about Communist Party membership before a congressional committee and his invocation of the Fifth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the disbarment, holding that while Communist Pa
• Cruzado v. People of Puerto RICO
  210 F.2d 789· 1st Cir.· 1954-03-11 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's counsel can waive the right to confrontation and cross-examination, especially when the defendant is present and does not object to the stipulation.
• United States v. Jermayne Whyte
  928 F.3d 1317· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-10 ·cited 23×
  Jermayne Whyte and Jennifer Castro were convicted of sex trafficking a minor and related offenses for recruiting and exploiting a 16-year-old runaway who lived with them for two months in Florida and worked as a prostitute at strip clubs. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed their convi
• Wyon Dale Childers v. Floyd
  642 F.3d 953· 11th Cir.· 2011-06-02 ·cited 23×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for official behavior based largely on testimony from Willie Junior, a co-conspirator who entered a plea agreement with the State. Childers sought to cross-examine Junior about the Elliot acquittal and a Notice
• Elwell v. State
  954 So. 2d 104· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-04-25 ·cited 23×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Thomas Elwell appeals his conviction for attempted lewd and lascivious molestation, challenging the trial court's admission of child-hearsay statements on the ground that the court failed to make specific factual findings required by Florida Statute section 90.803(23). The appell
• Hernandez v. State
  946 So. 2d 1270· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-01-26 ·cited 23×
  Javier Hernandez appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a child under twelve years of age. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by admitting a nurse's testimony about testimonial sta
• Bryant Williams v. State
  714 So. 2d 462· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-12-31 ·cited 23×
  Bryant Williams appeals his conviction for burglary with assault, aggravated stalking, and simple battery. The court affirms his convictions on most counts based on excited utterance hearsay testimony, distinguishing prior case law requiring independent corroborating evidence, bu
• Heuss v. State
  660 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-03-15 ·cited 23×
  James Heuss appeals his convictions for sexual battery on two children and lewd assault on a third child, challenging the admission of hearsay statements under the child sexual abuse exception, the sufficiency of evidence, and various trial court rulings. The Fourth District Cour
• Jones v. State
  577 So. 2d 606· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-03-13 ·cited 23×
  Thomas Jones was convicted of sexual battery, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony about a dispatcher's report of a female screaming, which the prosecutor used to contradict th
• United States v. Quinn
  901 F.2d 522· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior testimony without a sufficient showing of unavailability violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Anilkumar R. Parikh
  858 F.2d 688· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-25 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that any trial errors were invited, not preserved, or did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Bertram
  805 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 23×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the search and seizure were lawful, the trial judge's conduct did not deny a fair trial, evidentiary rulings were within discretion, and the evidence was sufficient to convict.
• United States v. Bernard S.
  795 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a juvenile's waiver of Miranda rights was valid despite limited English proficiency and age, and that medical records were admissible without the doctor testifying as the evidence was peripheral and any error was harmless.
• Moore v. State
  452 So. 2d 559· Fla.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that prior inconsistent statements given under oath before a grand jury are admissible as substantive evidence—not just for impeachment—under the Florida Evidence Code, overruling its prior case law and aligning with federal precedent interpreting s
• Hannah v. State
  432 So. 2d 631· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-31 ·cited 23×·via Right To Confrontation
  A juvenile appellant was convicted of armed robbery after a Pizza Hut employee identified him as the masked gunman. The court reversed because it improperly denied cross-examination of the key eyewitness to establish bias or prejudice stemming from a conflict between the witness
• United States ex rel. Gerald Scarpelli v. George
  687 F.2d 1012· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 23×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that a restriction on cross-examination of a crucial witness is not automatically harmful error and can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if it does not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Howze
  668 F.2d 322· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 23×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to rule on the constitutional validity of the defendant's prior guilty plea and by not properly applying the standard for admitting flight evidence.
• Holt v. Wyrick
  649 F.2d 543· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony and the use of information from tape recordings, even if obtained unconstitutionally, were harmless errors beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the retrial after a mistrial due to jury deadlock did not violate doub
• Marcelino Herreravega v. State
  888 So. 2d 66· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-10-22 ·cited 22×
  Marcelino Herrera-Vega appeals his conviction for capital sexual battery of a three-year-old victim. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that the victim's spontaneous statements to her parents were nontestimonial hearsay not subject to the confrontation clause restrictions
• Jackson v. State
  707 So. 2d 412· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-03-20 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jackson appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm. The appellate court reversed his conviction, finding two reversible errors: (1) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony about an anonymous tip identifying the defendant, and (2) the p
• United States v. Ellender
  947 F.2d 748· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed most convictions, finding no reversible error in severance, indictment sufficiency, discovery, or prosecutorial misconduct claims, but remanded one defendant's double jeopardy claim.
• Adams v. Sewell
  946 F.2d 757· 11th Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  James Adams, an Environmental Coordinator for Orange County, Florida, was terminated following an investigation into sexual harassment allegations. Adams sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the County violated his procedural and substantive due process rights. The district cour
• United States v. LAI
  944 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting drug records without proper foundation and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. It also instructed the district court to vacate Lai's conspiracy conviction if his continuing criminal enterprise conviction stands.
• United States v. Blair William Guthrie
  931 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred by not respecting a state court's vacation of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes under the Guidelines, but affirmed the conviction and other rulings.
• United States v. Smith
  930 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the arrest warrant was valid, the warrantless search was constitutional based on third-party consent, the evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession of firearms, and the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and sentencing errors were wi
• United States v. Arboleda
  929 F.2d 858· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence, the handling of discovery violations, or the denial of witness access.
• United States v. Guerra-Marez
  928 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that wiretap evidence was admissible, a variance between the indictment and evidence did not prejudice substantial rights, and prosecutorial explanations for jury strikes were adequate. However, the evidence was insufficient to support Wenseslada Reyes-Moya's consp
• United States v. van Dorn
  925 F.2d 1331· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding his prior drug prosecution and alleged threats, nor in admitting testimony about a defendant's affiliation with the Gambino crime family and expe
• United States v. Perkins
  926 F.2d 1271· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for severance, admitting post-conspiracy statements, or in its rulings on the admissibility of evidence, as the withheld evidence was either collateral, cumulative, or harmless.
• United States v. Vogt
  910 F.2d 1184· 4th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the admission of a redacted co-defendant statement was permissible and that sufficient evidence supported the RICO conviction.
• Valladares v. United States
  871 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's understanding of the trial and the assistance of his counsel were adequate, despite challenges to the interpreter's performance.
• Dorsey v. Parke
  872 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 22×
  The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not guarantee a defendant the right to cross-examine into a relevant subject already broached solely to expose witness demeanor, nor does it mandate the admission of evidence routinely excluded by evidentiary rules, even if exc
• United States v. Chestang
  849 F.2d 528· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that coconspirator statements were properly admitted, the government's discovery violation was harmless, the admission of check endorsements was harmless error, and the district court's prejudicial remark was cured by a corrective instruction.
• United States v. Wolf
  839 F.2d 1387· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendants' due process rights were not violated by the government's failure to produce gross tissue samples, and that statements admitted under the coconspirator exception were properly admitted or constituted harmless error. The court also found no due p
• United States v. Armand W. Robinson, Sr.
  832 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting voir dire regarding potential jurors' knowledge of attorneys' publicity, this error was harmless and did not deny the defendant a fair trial. The court also affirmed limitations on cross-examination of informants, findin
• Cintron v. State
  508 So. 2d 1315· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-06-19 ·cited 22×
  Juan Cintron appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress his confession allegedly made without adequate Miranda warnings. The appellate court reverses and remands because the trial court rel
• Johnson v. Dugger
  817 F.2d 726· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as the trial court's alleged errors did not render the petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair.
• United States v. Crockett
  813 F.2d 1310· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that Thressa Crews was improperly prohibited from cross-examining her co-defendant, Henry Crockett, violating her Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights.
• Chambers v. State
  504 So. 2d 476· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-19 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Chambers was convicted of capital sexual battery against his young stepsons based on videotaped testimony taken before trial. On appeal, he challenged the use of videotaped testimony during jury deliberations, his limited presence during the videotaping (viewing from behind a two
• United States v. Cameron
  814 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of a witness's drug use and misdemeanor conviction, nor in excluding evidence of a co-conspirator's flight, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and the fine was permissible.