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. Larkin
  417 F.2d 617· 1st Cir.· 1969-11-03 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial or dismiss a juror after a juror observed the defendant in custody, as the court took prompt remedial action.
• United States ex rel. Clarence Lee Sloan v. McMANN
  415 F.2d 275· 2d Cir.· 1969-09-12 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition without reaching the merits, to allow New York courts to adjudicate the appellant's Bruton claim.
• Merritt v. United States
  401 F.2d 768· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-15 ·cited 20×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for a ministerial exemption and that his constitutional claims regarding representation and process were without merit.
• Evans v. Dutton
  400 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-16 ·cited 20×
  The admission of a coconspirator's out-of-court statement, made after the crime and while the conspirators were imprisoned, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• August J. Serio v. United States
  401 F.2d 989· D.C. Cir.· 1968-08-22 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's redacted confession, even with limiting instructions, constitutes reversible error under Bruton v. United States when the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the co-defendant.
• United States v. August Costanzo
  395 F.2d 441· 4th Cir.· 1968-03-19 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a federal juvenile proceeding leading to institutional commitment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency.
• Sheppard v. Maxwell
  346 F.2d 707· 6th Cir.· 1965-05-05 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court improvidently granted Dr. Sheppard's habeas corpus petition and ordered his release. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded Dr. Sheppard to custody.
• Baker v. State
  150 So. 2d 729· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-03-12 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Baker was convicted of operating a gambling house based on evidence obtained from a search warrant issued on an affidavit signed by R. Brown. The court reversed the conviction, holding that when a defendant challenges whether the affiant actually exists and the State refuses to i
• Young v. United States
  214 F.2d 232· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that admitting grand jury testimony into evidence before the trial jury, even under the guise of refreshing a witness's recollection, was improper hearsay and not harmless error.
• Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin v. Warden, Comm'r, Ga. Dep't OF Corr.
  932 F.3d 1291· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-31 ·cited 19×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, finding that while the prosecutor's comments violated Al-Amin's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the error did not result in actual prejudice under the Brecht standard due to overwhelming
• Emilia L. Carr v. State
  156 So. 3d 1052· Fla.· 2015-02-05 ·cited 19×
  Emilia Carr was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for her role in the premeditated killing of Heather Strong. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed her conviction and death sentence, rejecting numerous challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings, treatm
• Card v. State
  927 So. 2d 200· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-04-28 ·cited 19×
  James Card was convicted of driving with a revoked license as a habitual offender. Card appealed, arguing that his driving record was testimonial hearsay that violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington. The court held that driving records are n
• Bordelon v. State
  908 So. 2d 543· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-07-29 ·cited 19×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed Reginald Bordelon's conviction for giving a false name to a law enforcement officer, holding that the trial court improperly curtailed his right to recross-examine the State's only witness on new material introduced during redir
• Manuel v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-05-16 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confrontation
  Stephen Manuel was convicted of aggravated battery, but the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously admitted the victim's hearsay statement to a police officer in violation of Crawford v. Washington's Confro
• Hall v. State
  744 So. 2d 517· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-10-06 ·cited 19×
  Milton Hall's probation was revoked based on alleged robbery and burglary charges. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the state's case relied overwhelmingly on hearsay evidence that was insufficiently corroborated by non-hearsay evidence, violating
• Glock v. Singletary
  36 F.3d 1014· 11th Cir.· 1994-10-07 ·cited 19×
  Robert Dewey Glock II was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery in 1983 and sentenced to death. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his murder conviction despite finding a Bruton violation in the admission of his nontestifying codefendant's
• United States v. Ira Silverman (90-3205)
  976 F.2d 1502· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard is insufficient for determining relevant conduct in sentencing, particularly when it involves uncharged or acquitted criminal activity.
• United States v. Lang
  904 F.2d 618· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5) and the resulting Confrontation Clause violation were harmless error because the government's case was strong and the testimony was not essential to the conviction.
• State v. Farr
  558 So. 2d 437· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-02-14 ·cited 19×
  Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal prohibited a second compelled gynecological examination of an 8-year-old sexual abuse victim. The court held that absent extreme and compelling circumstances that would result in manifest injustice, defendants cannot compel re-examination
• United States v. Anthony DiCARLANTONIO (88-3151/3248)
  870 F.2d 1058· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the conspiracy convictions were valid, the substantive Hobbs Act convictions must be reversed because the government failed to prove the defendants' actions had a de minimis effect on interstate commerce.
• United States v. Fernandez
  797 F.2d 943· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-26 ·cited 19×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that coconspirator statements are admissible for RICO convictions if the James standard is met for the RICO conspiracy, but separate determinations are needed for other conspiracies. The evidence was insufficient to support Fernandez's marijuana conspiracy convicti
• United States v. Boyce
  797 F.2d 691· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of hearsay at a suppression hearing, and that the prosecutor's improper closing argument remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Jenkins
  785 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-27 ·cited 19×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Proof of federal insurance is not an element of the offense under the first prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 1010, and a defendant waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by failing to assert it during grand jury or deposition testimony.
• Hinton McClure Waters v. State
  486 So. 2d 614· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-03-06 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that errors during jury selection, trial, and sentencing deprived the appellant of a fair and impartial trial.
• United States v. Singer
  785 F.2d 228· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge holds that the government's conduct forced the defendant's chosen counsel to withdraw, constituting demonstrable prejudice that warrants dismissal of the indictment.
• Hoover v. State OF Md.
  714 F.2d 301· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's bias, as sufficient evidence of bias was presented to the jury.
• United States v. Burton Kaatz
  705 F.2d 1237· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of evidence from a Currency Transaction Report and a civil audit was proper, and that statements of a co-defendant were admissible under the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Mastrangelo
  693 F.2d 269· 2d Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 19×
• United States v. Sandor Regner
  677 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior insurance claims was not an abuse of discretion, a continuance granted was sufficient, and the admission of foreign public documents did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Simmons v. Braun
  627 F.2d 635· 2d Cir.· 1980-08-14 ·cited 19×
  The exclusionary rule does not apply to extradition hearings, and the evidence presented was sufficient for extraditability.
• Valentin Hernandez v. State
  360 So. 2d 39· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-06-13 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the complaining witness's alleged political bias.
• Inmates OF the Nebraska Penal AND Correctional Complex v. Greenholtz
  576 F.2d 1274· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-18 ·cited 19×
  The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to parole release determinations, requiring certain procedural safeguards. However, the full panoply of rights afforded in criminal prosecutions is not required.
• United States v. Sacco
  563 F.2d 552· 2d Cir.· 1977-10-05 ·cited 19×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, refusing to set aside convictions due to alleged wiretap taint, or denying Sacco a hearing after his escape and failure to appear.
• United States v. Leadell Walton
  538 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the admission of interlocking confessions in a joint trial was not reversible error, as the government's independent case was strong and the confessions were cumulative, rendering any error harmless. The court also found the warrantless search of an automobile
• United States v. Taylor
  478 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1973-05-14 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that continuing a criminal trial in a defendant's voluntary absence does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or the Fifth Amendment due process rights, provided the defendant knew of their right to be present and voluntarily absented themselves.
• Hoover v. Beto
  439 F.2d 913· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 19×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained through an invalid search warrant and the admission of hearsay testimony implicating the defendant violated his constitutional rights.
• Phillup Alan Partin v. State
  82 So. 3d 31· Fla.· 2011-12-01 ·cited 18×
  Phillup Alan Partin was convicted of the first-degree murder of 16-year-old Joshan Ashbrook and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, rejecting his claims regarding evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the proportionality
• Milton v. State
  993 So. 2d 1047· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-02-28 ·cited 18×
  Dave Milton was convicted of trafficking cocaine at a retrial after a mistrial was declared due to Bruton concerns. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State violated Milton's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by questioning a codefendant (Harrison) about sta
• State v. Borrego
  970 So. 2d 465· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-12-12 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's identity in a marijuana possession and sale case. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that disclosure was neces
• Ferrer v. State
  785 So. 2d 709· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-05-23 ·cited 18×
  Jeff Ferrer challenges a DUI conviction, arguing that Deputy Vila's hearsay testimony about Officer Claremont's basis for stopping him violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The court holds that hearsay testimony at a motion to suppress hearing is permissible u
• Chadwick v. State
  680 So. 2d 567· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-08-07 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Steven Chadwick was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence. The appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the officers' bias—specifically, that Chadwick had threatened to sue them and they were s
• United States v. McLAUGHLIN
  957 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in denying Bruce's motion to suppress based on an alleged informal immunity agreement, nor in its evidentiary rulings or refusal to sever McLaughlin's trial.
• Johnson v. State
  595 So. 2d 132· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-02-13 ·cited 18×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Mary Johnson appealed her cocaine possession conviction, which followed a nolo contendere plea with reserved appellate rights challenging the denial of a suppression motion. The Florida appellate court held that while probable cause existed for her arrest, the trial court reversi
• United States v. Watson
  952 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to compel the prosecutor to testify, admitting the informant's hearsay statements for a limited purpose, finding sufficient evidence for convictions, and calculating the defendant's sentence.
• United States v. Lonedog
  929 F.2d 568· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-02 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its rulings on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and that any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Johnson
  925 F.2d 1115· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the omission of the informant's familial relationship in the warrant affidavit was not a Franks violation and that taped conversations were admissible coconspirator statements.
• United States v. Winfred Payne
  923 F.2d 595· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession was a Bruton violation but harmless error, and that denial of severance and dual representation were not abuses of discretion. The denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was also affirmed.
• United States v. Magana-Olvera
  917 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that Ricky Zimmerle's hearsay statements were inadmissible under Rule 804(b)(3) and violated the Sixth Amendment, but the conspiracy conviction was supported by sufficient independent evidence, while the firearms conviction was not.
• Martinez v. Sullivan
  881 F.2d 921· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 18×
  The prosecution's failure to utilize the Uniform Act to secure an out-of-state witness, coupled with the witness's history of unreliability, meant the witness was not legally "unavailable" and their prior testimony should not have been admitted, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Antonios Koskerides
  877 F.2d 1129· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the IRS followed its procedures, discovery rules were not violated, hearsay was properly admitted or harmless, cross-examination was appropriately limited, and the evidence was sufficient for conviction.