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. Price
  792 F.2d 994· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the introduction of taped conversations did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, nor did the government's handling of other taped evidence violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Jimenez
  780 F.2d 975· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated by the arrests without probable cause, the denial of severance due to a Bruton violation, or the denial of a mistrial for a sequestration rule violation.
• United States v. Donald Malsom & Tencom Corp.
  779 F.2d 1228· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that sufficient evidence existed to prove criminal intent for violating export laws and that the search warrant affidavit was valid.
• United States v. Emerson Molt
  772 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-10 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Jackson
  756 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the dictum extending 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) to a murder occurring hours before a bank robbery is unsound and unnecessary.
• Marr v. State
  470 So. 2d 703· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-29 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Paul Allen Marr appeals his sexual battery conviction, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's rape shield statute as applied to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct relevant to bias, and contesting the trial court's denial of a requested jury instruction
• Crockett Stevens v. Bordenkircher
  746 F.2d 342· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding a key witness's bias and the improper admission of a death certificate violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. McCULLAH
  745 F.2d 350· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Kapnison
  743 F.2d 1450· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Blessing
  727 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Blessing's conspiracy conviction but sufficient to support Rodriguez's conviction.
• United States v. Pizarro
  717 F.2d 336· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government was not responsible for the informant's disappearance and made reasonable efforts to locate him, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the informant's unavailability or cross-examination.
• Cruz v. State
  437 So. 2d 692· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-04-14 ·cited 22×
  Cruz appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. The appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court unduly restricted Cruz's right to cross-examine the state's key witness regarding drug u
• Trussell v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  699 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of the police report, while potentially an error under state law, did not violate due process because the defendant was offered alternative means to present the exculpatory evidence, which he declined.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Joseph
  685 F.2d 857· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 22×
  The majority holds that the jury's receipt of the defendant's written statement, along with the improper submission of another letter, constitutes reversible error mandating a new trial.
• United States v. Tunnell
  667 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the RICO convictions and forfeiture, and that the use of a videotaped deposition did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Miller
  666 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that evidence derived from an inadmissible diary was admissible if it was sufficiently attenuated from the primary taint or would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, and that the admission of a co-defendant's confession against a defendant, when n
• United States v. Williams
  668 F.2d 1064· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by unduly restricting the defendant's cross-examination of a key government witness, thereby violating the confrontation clause and requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Zeigler v. Callahan
  659 F.2d 254· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the Commonwealth's alleged non-disclosure of the full scope of its agreement with a key witness, nor by the failure to correct allegedly false testimony.
• Tobias Q. Poole v. Perini
  659 F.2d 730· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-18 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of portions of accomplice statements adopted by the appellant constituted admissible adoptive confessions, and any remaining hearsay was harmless error. The court also found that the admission of polygraph evidence, to which the appellant
• Clementine Williams v. State
  386 So. 2d 25· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-06-25 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Clementine Williams appeals her manslaughter conviction, arguing the trial court erred by preventing cross-examination of the state's key witness about a prior false statement to police. The court agreed and reversed, holding that restricting cross-examination on credibility of c
• United States v. Harold Glickman aka Hal Glickman
  604 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-14 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government met its burden to produce an informant and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Bleckner
  601 F.2d 382· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court erred in unduly limiting the defendant's cross-examination of a key government witness, thereby violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
• United States v. White
  562 F.2d 587· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-30 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government introduced sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the charges of conspiracy and bank fraud, and that the defendant's false statements to the grand jury were material.
• Harvard v. State
  375 So. 2d 833· Fla.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confront Evidence
  William Lanay Harvard was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for shooting his ex-wife Ann Bovard in the neck with a shotgun. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence after reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, a
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• United States ex rel. Birchel Leonard Carson v. Taylor
  540 F.2d 1156· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court held that the parolee's due process rights were violated by the failure to provide written notice of all claimed violations and by the reliance on undisclosed documentary evidence.
• United States v. Dady
  536 F.2d 675· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant's confession, along with independent evidence, did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  519 F.2d 708· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-03 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding related litigation and in its jury instructions and interrogatories, thus affirming the judgment.
• Truman v. Louie L. Wainwright
  514 F.2d 150· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state trial court's limitations on defense cross-examination and refusal to allow a witness to be called out of order did not violate federal constitutional standards, thus denying a writ of habeas corpus was proper.
• United States v. Napoleon Pollard and Robert Perry Herman
  509 F.2d 601· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of confessions and evidence of prior similar acts was proper, and that the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.
• Wilkins v. Erickson
  505 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-06 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Boykin v. Alabama does not require a state court judge to specifically articulate the three federal constitutional rights waived by a guilty plea; a reviewing court can find a plea voluntary and intelligent from the entire record, including a post-conviction evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Fleming
  504 F.2d 1045· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that multiple sentences for a single bank robbery under different subsections of the Federal Bank Robbery Act are improper, and that placing multiple lives in jeopardy during one robbery constitutes only one offense under § 2113(d).
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Leeson v. Damon
  496 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that erroneous advice from counsel regarding sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless it is so egregious as to shock the conscience.
• United States v. Perez
  493 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Stephens
  492 F.2d 1367· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a conspiracy conviction, proper admission of evidence, and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on witness testimony and discovery.
• Gissendanner v. Louie L. Wainwright
  482 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-17 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that petitioners lacked standing to challenge a suppressed confession that was not used against them, and that their identification was not the fruit of that confession. The court also found that other claims lacked merit or did not rise to constitutional dimension
• United States v. Freed
  460 F.2d 75· 10th Cir.· 1972-05-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to report for induction was not excused by his claims regarding medical conditions or non-receipt of orders, and that the admission of his selective service file and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Knox
  458 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 22×
• United States ex rel. Robert Duff v. Zelker
  452 F.2d 1009· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-27 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
• Gaines v. Craven
  448 F.2d 1236· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-27 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the police officer's actions, including the initial stop and entry into the apartment, were constitutionally permissible, and any error regarding cross-examination was harmless.
• United States v. Woodring
  446 F.2d 733· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the pretrial identification procedures, the defendant's admissions, the prosecution's opening statement, and the removal hearing procedures did not deny the defendant due process or violate any rules of criminal procedure.
• Warren v. United States
  447 F.2d 259· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of the sawed-off shotgun and documentary evidence of non-registration was proper, and the prosecution did not violate the appellant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. MIX
  446 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-12 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the statute was constitutional, the search was valid based on consent, the defendant's statements were admissible after Miranda warnings, and the IRS certificate was admissible as an official record.
• Powers v. United States
  446 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate a sentence if their allegations, if proven, would entitle them to relief.
• Zebedee Johnson v. State
  249 So. 2d 470· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-06-15 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Johnson was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed, finding reversible error in the trial court's admission of ballistics expert testimony when the State lost the fatal bullet, thereby depriving John
• McPHERSON v. State
  237 So. 2d 18· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-06-25 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  James Edward McPherson appealed his conviction based on a nolo contendere plea, arguing the record failed to show his plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but emphasized the importance of trial co
• United States v. Filippo Sacco aka John Rosselli
  428 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-17 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a marriage entered into solely to legitimate a child, without intent to live as spouses, is not a valid marriage for federal immigration purposes, and thus cannot confer derivative citizenship. The court also affirmed the conviction for alien registration viol
• Tyler v. Swenson
  427 F.2d 412· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  A state court evidentiary hearing is not fair when the judge who presided over the original plea also acts as the trier of fact, relying on his own recollection of events that are disputed by the petitioner and cannot be cross-examined.
• United States v. Ballentine
  410 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-30 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a co-defendant's prior out-of-court statement, which inculpated the defendant, was admissible for impeachment purposes when the co-defendant testified and was subject to cross-examination. The court also held that the failure to request limiting instructions b
• Bearden v. United States
  403 F.2d 782· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the jury's observation of a co-defendant's guilty plea and the judge's comment on it in the jury charge, while not ideal, did not constitute reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the lack of demonstrable unfairness.