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. Seeley
  892 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admissibility of an unavailable declarant's out-of-court statements against penal interest, even when used to inculpate, does not require a separate judicial assessment of the in-court witness's credibility; such credibility is for the jury.
• United States v. Vizcarra-Porras
  889 F.2d 1435· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity and compel testimony, nor did it err in its evidentiary rulings or find reversible error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
• Savino v. State
  555 So. 2d 1237· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-11-08 ·cited 16×
  Joseph Savino appeals his third-degree murder conviction for the death of his stepson. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding multiple trial errors: (1) unconstitutional deprivation of Savino's right to be present during witness testimony and jury instruction, (2
• United States v. Ibukun O. Mayomi
  873 F.2d 1049· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the detention of the defendant's mail for a period of forty-eight hours over a weekend for a canine sniff test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's identity and prior investigations was not an
• State v. Lewis
  543 So. 2d 760· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-02-17 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court's grant of a new trial for first-degree murder and arrest of judgment on sexual battery, while defendant George Lewis cross-appealed the denial of his motion for acquittal on the murder charge. The appellate court reversed the new trial
• United States v. Detrich
  865 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding Dawood Nusraty's statement that he was getting married, as it was not hearsay when offered to show the defendant's state of mind and was relevant to the defense.
• Gibson v. State
  533 So. 2d 338· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-11-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to properly object on that specific ground in the trial court.
• Smith v. Fairman
  862 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of the victim's prior inconsistent statement was constitutional error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
• Vasquez v. A.L. Lockhart
  867 F.2d 1056· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the Wainwright cause and prejudice test to procedurally bar the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and that the claims of insufficient evidence and denial of effective cross-examination were without merit.
• United States v. Owens
  844 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court remanded the case for the district court to rule on a Rule 602 objection regarding witness personal knowledge, as the Supreme Court had reversed the prior decision on Confrontation Clause grounds.
• Ford v. Seabold
  841 F.2d 677· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section violation because young adults and college students are not distinctive groups, and the underrepresentation of women was not shown to be the result of systematic excl
• United States v. Warner
  830 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation when the defendant repeatedly failed to file delinquent tax returns and pay court costs, despite numerous opportunities and warnings, and his asserted defenses of Fifth Amendment privilege and
• United States v. Viera
  819 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 16×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded to the district court to develop facts regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct before ruling on the conviction's reversal.
• United States v. Bales
  813 F.2d 1289· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding sufficiency of evidence, search and seizure, witness testimony, statutory application, and restitution were without merit.
• United States v. Gomez
  810 F.2d 947· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 16×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception was proper, and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding alleged prior misconduct or in denying a motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Kendell R. Patterson and William L. Brasher
  809 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that defendants' federal convictions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Petite policy is not a defense, and any procedural errors were harmless.
• United States v. Everette A. Bohrer
  807 F.2d 159· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the summons was properly issued, discovery of a tax protester list was not required, the evidence of willfulness was sufficient, and the jury instructions were proper.
• Evans v. O.L. McCOTTER
  790 F.2d 1232· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to prove federal constitutional infirmities in his trial, affirming the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Neyland v. Blackburn
  785 F.2d 1283· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea and sentence enhancement were constitutionally valid, as the record demonstrated the plea was knowing and voluntary, and the enhanced sentence was based on adequate warnings and counsel's authorized admissions.
• United States v. Larranaga
  787 F.2d 489· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that materiality in perjury cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 is a question of law for the court, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction based on the submission of false minutes.
• Johnson v. Blackburn
  778 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner is procedurally barred from raising a due process claim regarding jury instructions because his trial counsel failed to object, and he failed to demonstrate cause for this failure.
• Gross v. Greer
  773 F.2d 116· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of constitutional error were either procedurally barred, harmless, or properly handled by the state courts, and thus denied the petition for habeas corpus relief.
• Clay v. Vose
  771 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 16×
  The admission of identification testimony from a previously hypnotized witness, who had a pre-hypnosis identification and was subject to cross-examination before an instructed jury, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
• United States v. Laurence John Layton
  767 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 'Last Hour Tape' under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, as its probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.
• United States v. Howard
  751 F.2d 336· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by the evidence, and their various claims of error, including fatal variance, inconsistent acquittal, denial of confrontation, improper admission of evidence, and denial of severance, were without merit.
• United States v. Chiavola
  744 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained from a telephone conversation, even if obtained through alleged police misconduct against a co-conspirator, was permissible because the defendant incriminated himself voluntarily and his trial was not fundamentally unfair. Th
• United States v. Stuart
  718 F.2d 931· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-18 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  Actual disbursement of money is not a necessary element for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 657 for willful misapplication of savings and loan funds.
• Pender v. State
  432 So. 2d 800· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-06-15 ·cited 16×
  Pender was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court erred by refusing to allow defense counsel to make a proffer of excluded testimony during cross-examination of the state's witness, which violat
• Arnie King v. Higgins
  702 F.2d 18· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant superintendent was not entitled to qualified immunity because he knew or should have known that his failure to investigate the prisoner's due process claims violated clearly established constitutional rights and departmental regulations.
• Debose v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  700 F.2d 1262· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  An agency may proceed with termination under 5 U.S.C. § 7513 for unacceptable performance even without a formal performance appraisal system, provided it meets the higher burden of proof required by that section. The admission of altered documentary evidence and secondary evidenc
• United States v. Knop
  701 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the banks were federally insured at the time the false statements were made, an essential element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
• United States v. Brainard
  690 F.2d 1117· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that excluding testimony of Moss' exculpatory statements was reversible error under Federal Rule of Evidence 806.
• Smith v. State
  404 So. 2d 167· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-09-29 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  A trial court abuses its discretion by unduly restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's generalized racial bias when such questioning is probative of potential bias affecting credibility, and the court's failure to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties is r
• United States v. Cotton
  631 F.2d 63· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-21 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in overruling objections regarding witness testimony, prosecutorial argument, or in its application of collateral estoppel.
• In the Interest of G. E. G. v. State
  389 So. 2d 325· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-10-22 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a child's delinquency adjudication for cannabis possession despite the State's failure to formally introduce the seized baggie into evidence. The court held that in drug cases where the substance is consumed during testing, the chemist'
• Donnell Thomas v. Cardwell
  626 F.2d 1375· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior testimony, even if the witness was evasive or claimed memory loss at trial, did not violate the Confrontation Clause if the witness was subject to cross-examination at the time the prior testimony was given and the witness's
• United States v. Ramirez
  622 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 16×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court's limitation on defense counsel's cross-examination did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Parker
  622 F.2d 298· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' statements in a joint trial can be reversible error if it contributes to a defendant's conviction, but may be harmless error if the defendant's own statement is sufficiently inculpatory. The court also affirmed the validity of th
• Christopher v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole
  589 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court should have remanded for a determination of whether the Board's denial of confrontation and cross-examination was a proper exercise of discretion.
• United States v. Marks
  585 F.2d 164· 6th Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 16×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The admission of a codefendant's prior grand jury testimony, which directly implicated the defendant, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and this error was not harmless.
• State v. Armstrong
  363 So. 2d 38· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-10-04 ·cited 16×
  The trial court erred in dismissing grand larceny charges based on the non-availability of the allegedly stolen cigarettes as evidence.
• Bulger v. McCLAY
  575 F.2d 407· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state court's failure to provide a full and fair hearing on the issue of jury prejudice, due to the introduction of extrinsic evidence, warranted federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Martinez
  573 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-03 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding no merit in their arguments regarding suppression of statements, sufficiency of evidence, severance, admissibility of co-conspirator statements, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Hart
  566 F.2d 977· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a trial judge's failure to personally inform defendants of their rights and the consequences of their plea, as required by Rule 11, necessitates reversal of their convictions.
• United States v. Leja
  568 F.2d 493· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-22 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that restricting defense counsel's cross-examination of a government informant regarding the total amount of money received over a long period was prejudicial error.
• United States v. DI Rodio
  565 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's post-arrest hearsay statements, which corroborated the prosecution's informant and were made after the conspiracy ended, was an error of constitutional dimension that was not harmless.
• United States v. Brady
  561 F.2d 1319· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in restricting defense counsel's cross-examination of a key government witness regarding her prior drug sources.
• The United States v. White
  553 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of redacted hearsay statements of a murder victim was admissible under the against penal interest exception and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to poll the jury regarding a newspaper article.
• United States v. Benavides
  549 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-25 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's conviction must be reversed due to the trial court's ex parte communication with the jury and undue restriction of cross-examination regarding a witness's plea bargain.
• United States ex rel. Gregory A. Thomas v. Cuyler
  548 F.2d 460· 3d Cir.· 1977-01-07 ·cited 16×
  The use of a witness' prior statement, even if the witness claims memory loss, does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause if the witness is produced and available for cross-examination.