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. Olvera
  954 F.2d 788· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-15 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not impermissibly "double count" sentencing factors, did not err in determining the quantity of cocaine for sentencing, and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing procedures.
• United States v. Aguilar
  948 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by limitations on cross-examination.
• United States v. Jaleh Nazemian
  948 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that statements made through an interpreter can be admitted as the defendant's own statements if the interpreter acts as a language conduit or agent, and that a co-conspirator's statement about a prior debt, while not in furtherance of the current conspiracy, could
• United States v. Skinner
  946 F.2d 176· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions for drug and money laundering offenses but remanded for reconsideration of a downward departure from the sentences imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Ellzey
  936 F.2d 492· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that restricting cross-examination of a witness regarding pending state charges was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause, and that prosecutorial misconduct and the giving of an Allen instruction did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Mushtaq Malik
  928 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in limiting cross-examination regarding the defendant's alleged affiliations with terrorist organizations, nor in admitting evidence of prior bad acts or the meaning of an alias, as these rulings were within the court's discretion a
• United States v. Partap Singh
  922 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and that the defendants' temporary exclusion from a hearing did not violate their confrontation clause rights. The evidence was also found sufficient to support the convic
• United States v. Benitez
  920 F.2d 1080· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of redacted codefendant statements, the denial of severance, and the sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal of the conviction.
• Ferrier v. Duckworth
  902 F.2d 545· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 14×
  The admission of a witness's statement under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, and the introduction of irrelevant photographs, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
• United States v. Thunder
  893 F.2d 950· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions for kidnapping and sexual abuse but vacated the sentence for sexual abuse due to material misinformation regarding abduction, remanding for resentencing.
• United States v. Oliyinka Sobamowo
  892 F.2d 90· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that wiretap evidence was admissible, the evidence was sufficient for conspiracy convictions, and various procedural and instructional errors were either harmless or did not occur.
• United States v. Bear
  883 F.2d 1382· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the merger of assault and homicide charges, the limitations on cross-examination of a witness, and prosecutorial arguments during closing did not constitute plain error. The court also rejected various other claims of error.
• United States v. Castellanos
  882 F.2d 474· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a sentencing judge cannot rely on evidence from a co-defendant's trial to determine drug quantity for sentencing purposes if the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
• United States v. Ladd
  877 F.2d 1083· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a hearsay tape was harmless error, but the conviction for receipt of counterfeit currency was reversed because the evidence did not establish possession.
• United States v. Fontanez
  878 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court agrees with the judgment because the government did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation of the defendant's confrontation right was harmless error.
• United States ex rel. Joe L. Ashford v. Dir., Ill. Dep't OF Corr.
  871 F.2d 680· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination regarding the victim's drug use and pending charges, nor in refusing to allow the prosecuting attorney to testify, and that any potential errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Innes v. Dalsheim
  864 F.2d 974· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing and intelligent due to the ambiguity in the trial court's explanation of the consequences of breaching the plea agreement.
• United States v. Vazquez
  857 F.2d 857· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that bringing two suspects together, even with inconsistent prior statements, does not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda unless police actions are designed to elicit an incriminating response. The court also held that newly discovered evidence of a w
• United States v. York
  852 F.2d 221· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting hearsay statements made by a nine-year-old child, testified to by a probation officer, under the residual exception to the hearsay rule (Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5)).
• United States v. ROY
  843 F.2d 305· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while admitting an FBI agent's opinion testimony on the truthfulness of accomplices' statements was an abuse of discretion, it was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence and the limited impact of the testimony. The court also affirmed the denial of les
• United States v. Garcia
  836 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's bare assertion of no members of his racial group on the venire panel does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination without proof of disproportionate impact or opportunity for discrimination. It also held that admitting a co-defendant's
• United States v. Stewart
  820 F.2d 370· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 14×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's father's alleged secret agent activities was proper as it was irrelevant to the charges of illegal firearm possession and transfer. The court also found no merit in claims of judic
• United States v. Kurka
  818 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the statute should be read disjunctively, creating two separate prohibited acts with different mens rea requirements.
• United States v. Stackpole
  811 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the convictions of Donald Stackpole and Ray Norton, Jr. for their involvement in an arson conspiracy were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during their trials.
• United States v. Ferreira-Alameda
  815 F.2d 1251· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to co-defendants' testimony, and that he received effective assistance of counsel.
• Vern Leslie Herd v. Kincheloe
  800 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that both the Sandstrom jury instruction error and the Bruton error were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence of guilt.
• Weldon Wells v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.
  793 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 14×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the sufficiency of notice for the administrative hearing, and that the jury's excessive damages award indicated passion or prejudice, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Norris Lee Smith
  794 F.2d 1333· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that admitting an edited confession that distorted the meaning of the original statement, particularly by excluding exculpatory information, constituted plain error.
• Fuson v. A.R. Jago
  773 F.2d 55· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The admission of a deceased codefendant's custodial confession, which incriminated the petitioner, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the statement did not fall under a valid hearsay exception and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Jones
  766 F.2d 994· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the swearing of an investigative agent as an 'agent of the grand jury' did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or warrant dismissal of the indictment, and that the jury instructions regarding the Enmons defense were proper when viewed in their entirety.
• United States v. Winn
  767 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of appellant's prior conviction and hearsay statements from illegal aliens was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate his constitutional rights.
• United States v. Keithan
  751 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings regarding cross-examination, videotaped depositions, and discovery disclosures.
• Ewing v. Winans
  749 F.2d 607· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's deposition did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the exclusion of the victim's old prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Diez
  736 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the voir dire and jury instructions were proper, and the admission of a redacted statement and the handling of alleged juror misconduct did not constitute reversible error.
• Bowden v. Francis
  733 F.2d 740· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to order a psychiatric examination for competency, nor did it err in other claims raised by the petitioner.
• Priestly v. State
  450 So. 2d 289· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-05-02 ·cited 14×
  Darrell Priestly Sr. and Jr. appealed convictions for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. The court affirmed their convictions, rejecting arguments regarding admission of a tape recording, failure to introduce physical marijuana evidence, lack of proo
• United States v. Gagnon
  721 F.2d 672· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 14×
  The government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error of examining a juror without all defendants present did not contribute to the verdicts.
• United States v. Pagan
  721 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-18 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the erroneous admission of a prior Youth Corrections Act conviction, which had been set aside, required reversal because it was not harmless error and was not admissible to rebut the entrapment defense. The admission of a co-conspirator's taped statement did n
• United States v. Robertson
  698 F.2d 703· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a not guilty plea with a stipulation of facts is functionally similar to a conditional guilty plea for appeal purposes, but Sepe's prohibition should not be extended to this situation.
• United States v. Wood
  695 F.2d 459· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting LSD exhibits, tape recordings, or in limiting cross-examination, and that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause.
• Fowler v. Parratt
  682 F.2d 746· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was proper because the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from any alleged errors, whether considered singly or in conjunction, and failed to establish cause for procedural default
• Bennie E. Demps v. Louie L. Wainwright
  666 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the use of a deposition at trial, even if it violated the Confrontation Clause, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• Sher v. Stoughton
  666 F.2d 791· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confront Evidence
  The court held that anonymous telephone communications with jurors, while presumptively prejudicial, were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial given the trial judge's prompt inquiry, curative instructions, and the nature of the information conveyed.
• United States v. Stubbert
  655 F.2d 453· 1st Cir.· 1981-08-04 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in refusing to strike a co-conspirator's testimony despite the co-conspirator's refusal to name other buyers.
• D. C. v. State
  400 So. 2d 825· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-07-07 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination of state witnesses on issues of bias and credibility.
• United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
  647 F.2d 72· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the government's deportation of alien eyewitnesses violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Ectore Gregorio Garcia
  647 F.2d 794· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a key government witness, nor in refusing to sever the trial.
• United States v. Tillman Randolph Cunningham
  638 F.2d 696· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's prior convictions because the defense failed to provide sufficient information to establish their admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 609.
• United States v. Winley
  638 F.2d 560· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district judge did not err in declaring a mistrial and that the admission of redacted guilty plea allocutions of unavailable co-conspirators as declarations against interest was proper.
• United States v. Fielding
  630 F.2d 1357· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court declarations of alleged coconspirators, which were narrative or aimed at resolving personal debts rather than furthering the conspiracy's common objectives, violated the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause.