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

• Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright
  763 F.2d 1390· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's limitations on cross-examination did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that the admission of testimony, despite alleged police misconduct during arrest, was within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Daly
  756 F.2d 1076· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions, finding that the tax avoidance scheme was unlawful and that the trial court did not err in its procedural or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. McCALL
  740 F.2d 1331· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the written statement of Neal and the oral testimony of Hernandez regarding Neal's statements were inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 and not exceptions under FRE 803(24) or 804(b)(5).
• United States v. Alfonso
  738 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements was proper in a bench trial without explicit findings on the record, and that a sentence within statutory limits is generally not subject to appellate review.
• United States v. Snellen Johnson
  735 F.2d 1200· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the ex parte hearing and bail revocation did not prejudice the defendant, expert testimony was properly admitted, and the deposition of an unavailable witness was admissible.
• United States v. Reginaldo Rodriguez-Arevalo
  734 F.2d 612· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, and the admission of the sample bale of marijuana was proper.
• United States v. Phelps
  733 F.2d 1464· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the limitations on cross-examination were proper, the reading of the tape summary was harmless error, and the refusal of a jury instruction was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Coachman
  727 F.2d 1293· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession was harmless error, and that consecutive sentences for theft and false claims were permissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Whitt
  718 F.2d 1494· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the voir dire, that the mailings of county warrants were in furtherance of the mail fraud scheme, that sufficient evidence supported the Hobbs Act extortion convictions, and that instructing the jury o
• United States v. Simontov Yakobov
  712 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the ATF certificate was inadmissible hearsay due to a lack of diligent search and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant resided in New York for count 3.
• United States v. Chappell
  698 F.2d 308· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the admission of corporate records and testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Slocum
  695 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that convictions for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 must be reversed as check-kiting does not constitute a false statement or overvaluation, but affirmed other convictions and upheld the conspiracy conviction and sentencing.
• Blake v. Roderic H. Katter and Steven R. King
  693 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 20×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that Indiana Code § 34-1-2-2 Second, a five-year statute of limitations for actions against public officers, applies to this § 1983 action, and that claims for speedy trial and excessive force were improperly dismissed.
• United States v. Hans
  684 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding certain checks and ledgers as evidence, finding they were admissible under the Sixth Amendment and Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• Barksdale v. Blackburn
  670 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the dismissal of the appeal as untimely was improper because the appeal period runs from the date of entry of the judgment, not the filing date, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief on the merits.
• Anthony v. United States
  667 F.2d 870· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed Anthony's conviction for unlawful wiretapping and reversed the trial court's order allowing discovery of illegally obtained tapes, finding Sisney had standing to object.
• Morrow v. Wyrick
  646 F.2d 1229· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony from an unavailable witness, who was subject to cross-examination, is constitutionally permissible under the Confrontation Clause, and that other alleged errors were matters of state law not rising to constitut
• Guzzardo v. Bengston
  643 F.2d 1300· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights were not violated by hearsay remarks or opening statement summaries, and the pandering statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore, the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of
• United States v. Ira Keith Witschner
  624 F.2d 840· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of similar crimes, refusing to rule on a motion in limine prior to the defense case, or limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's father's parole status.
• Mayes v. Sowders
  621 F.2d 850· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's out-of-court statement violated the petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights for one murder conviction, but the error was harmless for the other murder conviction and two robbery convictions due to overwhelming evidence and
• Turner v. Fair
  617 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-18 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed if the specific legal theory supporting the constitutional claim was not fairly presented to the state courts.
• United States v. King
  613 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that SSA forms were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and that the defendant's statements did not fall under the 'exculpatory no' doctrine.
• Dunbar v. Harris
  612 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a witness's refusal to answer questions about unrelated drug dealings, even if potentially relevant to credibility, did not require striking his direct testimony when those questions were collateral to the subject of his direct testimony and the defendant was
• United States v. Vasilios
  598 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias, the error was not prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of a subsequent trial for Vasilios, finding that judicial administration concerns outweighed hi
• United States v. Gennaro J. Orrico
  599 F.2d 113· 6th Cir.· 1979-05-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that insufficient evidence was presented to sustain the conviction for causing the transportation of fraudulent checks in interstate commerce.
• United States v. Larson
  596 F.2d 759· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen the case for additional testimony, as the motion was untimely and the prosecution would have been prejudiced.
• United States v. Cain
  587 F.2d 678· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-09 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding a CB radio transmission was improper and prejudiced the defendant's conviction.
• Prellwitz v. Loyal J. Berg and James Mathews
  578 F.2d 190· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence and the notice provided for the probation revocation hearing did not violate the petitioner's due process rights.
• United States v. Vance Smith
  571 F.2d 370· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a district court may revoke probation when reasonably satisfied that a condition has been violated, and that hearsay evidence, if harmless, does not invalidate the revocation.
• United States v. Callahan
  551 F.2d 733· 6th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court erred by preventing the defendant from cross-examining the government's chief witness about prior similar confrontations, which was relevant to the witness's state of mind and the defendant's defense.
• United States v. Shoupe
  548 F.2d 636· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the prosecutor's recitation of a witness's unsworn, out-of-court statements to the jury, even for impeachment or to refresh recollection, constituted a clear abuse of discretion and denied the defendants a fair trial.
• United States v. Drake
  542 F.2d 1020· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant's contentions regarding trial competency, improper cross-examination, and prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Pattman
  535 F.2d 1062· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-25 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the probationer received adequate notice and that the admission of a police report, despite the arresting officer not testifying, was proper in a probation revocation hearing.
• United States v. McGREGOR
  529 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-09 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the coins were stolen and that the defendants knew they were stolen, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Stanfield
  521 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge's actions in making the opening statement and commenting on the evidence, as well as admitting unauthenticated transcripts to the jury, constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Liebert
  519 F.2d 542· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that while the non-filing lists are not statutorily protected from disclosure, their production was unreasonable under Rule 16(b) due to the availability of alternative discovery methods that protect individual privacy.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Vinzant
  522 F.2d 448· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statement, admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights. Prejudicial publicity did not violate the defendant's Fourteenth Amendme
• Park v. H. T. (Tommy) Huff
  493 F.2d 923· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Nunez
  483 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and substantive counts of importing and possessing marijuana, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Ragano
  476 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding Rizzo's out-of-court statement, which was not subject to cross-examination, was not harmless error, and that a witness's opinion on the ultimate issue of whether stock was received as payment for services rendered w
• United States v. Brumbaugh
  471 F.2d 1128· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court concurred in the affirmance of the conviction but would have held that prejudice inhered in the bailiff's conduct, obviating the need for the defendant to prove actual prejudice.
• Keeton v. Procunier
  468 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-19 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the Adult Authority is immune from damages claims, a prisoner's claim of constitutional rights interference by unidentified state officials warrants further proceedings and opportunity to amend.
• United States v. Miller
  463 F.2d 600· 1st Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that restricting repetitive cross-examination, denying a motion to withdraw counsel due to potential conflict, and proceeding with trial in absentia were all within the trial court's discretion and did not violate defendants' rights.
• Holland v. Henderson
  460 F.2d 978· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that dual representation by counsel in a joint trial, where the attorney's strategy to establish an alibi for one co-defendant prejudiced the other by preventing effective cross-examination, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Escandar
  465 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-24 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary in-court testimony, even if inculpatory, does not trigger the mandatory warnings and inquiries required for guilty pleas under Rule 11.
• United States v. Saletko
  452 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1971-11-30 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the conviction is affirmed, the increased sentence imposed after reconviction violated due process because the reasons given were not based on objective, post-original sentencing conduct. The sentence exceeding five years was deemed excessive.
• United States v. Fountain
  449 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for kidnapping and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle were supported by sufficient evidence and that no prejudicial errors occurred during the trial. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Lowell M. Birrell
  447 F.2d 1168· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-08 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated by the exclusion of cross-examination questions deemed collateral, and that the admission of similar acts evidence and the supplemental jury charge were not erroneous.
• United States ex rel. Samuel Ross v. LaVALLEE
  448 F.2d 552· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-03 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Costa
  425 F.2d 950· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-15 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance to locate the informant and that the defendant's prior conviction could be used for impeachment.