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. Williams
  877 F.2d 516· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants waived certain issues due to procedural deficiencies and that the evidence did not support an entrapment defense.
• United States v. Angeline Roan Eagle
  867 F.2d 436· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
• Glock v. Dugger
  537 So. 2d 99· Fla.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 18×
  Robert Glock challenges his death sentence imposed for the August 1983 murder of a woman during a kidnapping and robbery committed with codefendant Puiatti. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of postconviction relief and rejected Glock's claims th
• Verni v. State
  536 So. 2d 1162· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-12-30 ·cited 18×
  Robert Verni appeals his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The appellate court affirmed the trafficking conviction but reversed the conspiracy conviction due to a Bruton violation in admitting an unconfronted codefendant's
• Terrovona v. Kincheloe
  852 F.2d 424· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was constitutional, but remanded for further review of the warrantless arrest, waiver of rights, and admission of prior conviction evidence.
• Buelow v. Dickey
  847 F.2d 420· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Kirk
  844 F.2d 660· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of certain trial transcripts was harmless error and that the government sufficiently proved the elements of the RICO charge. The conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Jackson
  836 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are not required in bankruptcy proceedings and that false statements regarding the location of collateral are material even if a subsequent security agreement is alleged.
• Chaussard v. Fulcomer
  816 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner fairly presented his federal claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief, and that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated by the use of post-hypnosis testimony without a
• Trujillo v. Sullivan
  815 F.2d 597· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violation in the trial court's procedures regarding lesser included offense instructions or jury voir dire.
• United States v. Miliet
  804 F.2d 853· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, in its cross-examination rulings, or in denying a new trial motion, affirming the convictions.
• Davis v. State
  493 So. 2d 11· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-07-15 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Martin Davis appealed his armed robbery and attempted first-degree murder convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting police detective testimony that inescapably suggested a non-testifying witness identified the getaway vehicle. The appellate court agreed, findin
• Nelson v. State
  490 So. 2d 32· Fla.· 1986-05-01 ·cited 18×
  Nelson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death based largely on tape-recorded statements made by his alleged co-conspirator Echols, who did not testify. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and vacated the death sentence, finding that admission of
• United States v. Guichard
  779 F.2d 1139· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-08 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court's failure to explicitly inform the defendant of his right to confront witnesses did not constitute reversible error, as the core concerns of Rule 11 were met and the error was harmless.
• Holland v. Attorney General of New Jersey
  777 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 18×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant, even if deemed harmless error by state courts, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and requires reversal unless the prosecution proves harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Jackson
  757 F.2d 1486· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant cannot demand pre-trial discovery of a co-conspirator's statement when the government does not intend to call the co-conspirator as a witness.
• United States ex rel. Miles Cole v. Lane
  752 F.2d 1210· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-07 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that fragmented co-defendant statements did not violate Bruton, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to antagonistic defenses was waived.
• United States v. Stead
  746 F.2d 355· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that omissions in informing a defendant of certain rights during a guilty plea colloquy constitute harmless error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(h) if substantial rights are not affected.
• United States v. Touchstone
  726 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting evidence of defendants' flight, or limiting cross-examination of a government witness.
• United States v. Penn
  721 F.2d 762· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence in a probation revocation proceeding was permissible when it was reliable and there was good cause for not allowing confrontation, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation based on this evide
• United States v. Concepcion Rubio
  709 F.2d 146· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instructions on entrapment were proper, the government's use of an informant did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal, and the defendants' post-arrest statements were admissible.
• United States v. Balliviero
  708 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or excluding evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Perez
  702 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the co-conspirator's out-of-court statement was admissible hearsay and that sufficient independent evidence linked the appellant to the conspiracy, thus rejecting claims of hearsay and confrontation clause violations.
• State v. Moore
  424 So. 2d 920· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-29 ·cited 18×
  Florida's highest court reversed a dismissal of a first-degree murder indictment, holding that prior inconsistent statements given under oath before a grand jury are admissible as substantive evidence under the Florida Evidence Code, not merely for impeachment. The State could pu
• United States v. Walker
  696 F.2d 277· 4th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly admitted a portion of an unavailable witness's grand jury testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), and any error in excluding other portions was harmless.
• Elva Rubio v. Estelle
  689 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated during her state trial, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
• United States v. Washington
  688 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the refusal to instruct the jury on the defendant's theory of defense, that merely receiving unsolicited gifts is not a crime, was reversible error.
• United States ex rel. Leon Blackwell v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court's limitation on cross-examination, while close, did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because defense counsel had sufficient alternative means to impeach the witness. The court also affirmed the district court'
• United States v. Rodriguez-DeMAYA
  674 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made in compliance with Rule 11, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
• Ivory Davis v. Franzen
  671 F.2d 1056· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  A federal court may deny a habeas corpus petition without ordering a response if the petition, on its face, fails to allege facts showing a constitutional violation.
• State v. Snell
  391 So. 2d 299· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-12-10 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida appeals a trial court's order suppressing evidence of a firearm in a felon-in-possession case after the state lost the weapon due to inadvertence. The appellate court quashes the suppression order and remands, holding that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquir
• United States v. Yukio Uramoto
  638 F.2d 84· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court erred in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding prior threats made by the witness, as this limitation impermissibly denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses.
• United States v. Vandetti
  623 F.2d 1144· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting evidence of codefendants' prior convictions was prejudicial error, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Stone
  604 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-16 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that explanatory statements in an authenticating affidavit, when the affiant does not testify, constitute inadmissible hearsay and violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but such errors can be harmless if other evidence overwhelmingly supports the conv
• United States v. Adelle Ray White
  572 F.2d 1007· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-28 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  A district court's failure to comply with the formal requirements of Rule 11(c)(5) is not grounds for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice.
• Learie Leo Alford v. State
  355 So. 2d 108· Fla.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  A sentencing judge may be made aware of information from a pre-sentence report without unconstitutionally considering it in imposing a death sentence if the judge's discretion is properly guided and channeled by statute and does not factually rely on the undisclosed material.
• Blackwell v. Lou V. Brewer
  562 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's absence from the courtroom during the interrogation of the jury amounted to harmless error, and that the issue of waiver was not resolved.
• United States v. Seymour Rosenwasser
  550 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance or admitting testimony of a subsequent similar offense by a co-defendant, nor in refusing to allow cross-examination of a government agent.
• United States v. Gordon
  548 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that photographs taken after the alleged false statements were made were relevant to corroborate testimony, and that prosecution under a felony statute was permissible despite the existence of a similar misdemeanor statute.
• Bond v. State OF Okla.
  546 F.2d 1369· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, while constitutional error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. Other claims regarding improper conviction, denial of hearings, severance, and prejudicial ev
• United States v. Mathis
  550 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting prior testimony of an unavailable witness and in using a witness's statement from a guilty plea for impeachment.
• United States v. Croucher
  532 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-07 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that restricting cross-examination of a key government witness regarding prior arrests, which could demonstrate bias or pressure, violates the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Graham Johnny Cruz
  536 F.2d 1264· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of conspiracy and illegal exportation, that a coconspirator's statement was admissible, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions.
• United States v. Blackshire
  538 F.2d 569· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-31 ·cited 18×
• Smith v. State
  318 So. 2d 506· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-09-05 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Where a confidential informant is an active participant in setting up an illegal drug sale, the informer privilege must yield to the defendant's right to identify and confront the informant as a material witness essential to a fair determination of the cause.
• Smith v. State
  305 So. 2d 868· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-01-14 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was not denied by the state's failure to produce the stolen property when the defense did not demonstrate prejudice and filed a motion to produce late. The court also held that the state sufficiently proved
• Hanks v. State
  305 So. 2d 817· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-12-31 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance or a judgment of acquittal, and that the in-court identification was not tainted by pretrial procedures.
• Woodcock v. Amlaral
  511 F.2d 985· 1st Cir.· 1974-12-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's various claims, including Brady violations, insufficient indictment, denial of severance, improper prosecution mode, and ex post facto law application, did not warrant reversal of the habeas corpus petition dismissal.
• United States v. Tatum
  496 F.2d 1282· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The government has no duty to produce informers as witnesses, and a continuance is not required when the defendant does not request it.
• Stansel v. State
  297 So. 2d 63· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-06-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Petitioner Stansel challenged a $500,000 bond reduction in a marijuana conspiracy case on grounds that the trial court improperly considered secret in camera testimony from an undisclosed state witness. The appellate court held that such secret evidence violates fundamental confr