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

• Passmore v. Estelle
  607 F.2d 662· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 14×
  Ineffective assistance of counsel can be established if the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or if a state official knew or should have known of the deficient representation and failed to act.
• United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez
  608 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-31 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Caudle
  606 F.2d 451· 4th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendants the right to recross-examine a witness on new matters introduced during redirect examination, violating their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination.
• United States v. Nogueira
  585 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-26 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of cross-examination regarding the witness's past conduct and alleged enmity towards a former employer.
• Drayton v. McCALL
  584 F.2d 1208· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-02 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  A federal prisoner granted parole but not yet released is entitled to due process procedural safeguards in a parole rescission hearing, though not necessarily all those required for parole revocation.
• Bedie Thundershield v. Solem
  565 F.2d 1018· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-14 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  A guilty plea is constitutionally valid even if the defendant maintains their innocence, provided the plea is voluntary, intelligent, and supported by a factual basis, and counsel was effective.
• United States v. Kelly
  551 F.2d 760· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence seized from common areas of an apartment building with landlord consent was admissible, and statements by a codefendant, introduced to show falsity, did not violate the confrontation clause or hearsay rules.
• Welcome v. Vincent
  549 F.2d 853· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that refusing to permit defense counsel to cross-examine a witness who had confessed to the same crimes for which the appellant was on trial deprived the appellant of his due process right to a fair trial.
• United States v. Mitchell
  540 F.2d 1163· 3d Cir.· 1976-08-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to a hearing outside the jury's presence on the issue of identification taint, and that counsel's decision to waive the hearing did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Patric M. Graham v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd. & James E. Dow
  530 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-19 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the FAA regulation prohibiting medical certificates for individuals with a history of alcoholism is reasonably related to air safety, and the exemption process did not violate due process.
• United States v. Lemmons
  527 F.2d 662· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a five-day delay in executing a search warrant was reasonable due to the agent's illness, probable cause existed for the arrest, and fingerprint testimony was admissible under the business records exception.
• United States v. Yates
  524 F.2d 1282· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, made while in custody and not denied by the defendant, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Tavares
  512 F.2d 872· 9th Cir.· 1975-02-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that admitting a witness's prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence of guilt, when those statements were not made in a prior judicial proceeding, was reversible error under the orthodox rule.
• Warner S. Olds v. State
  302 So. 2d 787· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-10-25 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A defense attorney was held in contempt of court for attempting to impeach a prosecution witness who was also represented by the attorney's office. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the attorney's zealous cross-examination efforts, undertaken to protect
• United States v. Lomeli-Garnica
  495 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the release of a material witness, as the possibility of prejudice was remote and the witness was not an illegal alien.
• United States v. Ferguson
  498 F.2d 1001· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-16 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the identity of an informant until after his disappearance, and its misleading assurances about his availability, prejudiced the defendant's right to interview and potentially call the informant as a witness, and also preju
• Boykins v. Fairfield Bd. OF Educ.
  492 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the school board's disciplinary procedures and punishments were constitutionally adequate and that the students' demands were not legally required.
• United States v. Cruz
  492 F.2d 217· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that Molotov cocktails are 'destructive devices' under the National Firearms Act and that the certificate of non-registration is admissible evidence.
• The Black Coal. v. Portland Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  484 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while brief student suspensions without a prior hearing are permissible, expulsion procedures must afford due process, including the right to counsel and cross-examination. The court affirmed the district court's finding that expulsion procedures were unconsti
• United States v. Roberts
  483 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the inference of guilty knowledge from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is constitutional and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Love
  482 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to the taking of acetone swabs incident to a lawful arrest, and that the unintentional destruction of evidence does not require exclusion if the expert is available for cross-examination.
• Moore v. Adm'r, Veterans Admin., Chairman & Comm'rs, United States Civil Serv. Sys.
  475 F.2d 1283· D.C. Cir.· 1973-02-14 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the refusal to call investigators or provide the investigative report did not violate due process or confrontation rights, and substantial evidence supported the removal decision.
• McDONNELL v. United States
  472 F.2d 1153· 8th Cir.· 1973-02-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of prior trial testimony of a witness who claimed memory loss was permissible under hearsay exceptions and did not violate the confrontation clause, as the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at both trials.
• United States v. del Valle-Rojas
  463 F.2d 228· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw a guilty plea, nor was the right of confrontation abridged.
• United States v. Aaron
  457 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-10 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the unintentional, brief delay in producing a second Jencks Act report was harmless error, as the defense counsel made a tactical decision not to use it for impeachment.
• United States v. Gary
  447 F.2d 907· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions, while imperfect, sufficiently emphasized the possession requirement to avoid reversible error, and that the evidence supported the jury's findings of guilt for constructive possession.
• United States ex rel. Jerome Rosenberg v. Mancusi
  445 F.2d 613· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 14×
• Tyler v. Swenson
  440 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1971-04-02 ·cited 14×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice because the appellant had not exhausted available state remedies for his claims regarding pretrial identification and hearsay evidence.
• Angle v. Laird
  429 F.2d 892· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's failure to use available military remedies was not a deliberate bypass, but his counsel's failure to object to a deposition and enter into a stipulation constituted a waiver of confrontation rights, and his defense counsel was constitutionally
• United States v. Sims
  430 F.2d 1089· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-07 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is not violated when a codefendant's incriminating statement, which implicates the defendant, is used against the codefendant if the codefendant subsequently testifies at trial. A defendant's own confession is admissible if vol
• United States v. Sparano
  422 F.2d 1095· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the search of the defendant's living quarters was reasonable as incident to a valid arrest under pre-Chimel standards, and that the jury's potential inference of co-defendants implicating the defendant was too remote to violate the Sixth Amendment confrontatio
• United States v. Blassick
  422 F.2d 652· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence, while improper, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given defense counsel's prior remarks and the court's curative instructions. The court also held that a warrantless search of a locker was permissible under
• Talavera v. State
  227 So. 2d 493· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-10-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  Talavera appeals his robbery conviction and 25-year sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance from his codefendant. The court holds that while a defendant has a constitutional right to compulsory process to call a codefendant as a witness, a seve
• United States ex rel. Clifford Brown v. Rundle
  417 F.2d 282· 3d Cir.· 1969-09-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the conviction was valid, the sentence was unconstitutional due to the sentencing judge's reliance on an inadmissible confession and a disputed statement from a presentence report. The cause was remanded for resentencing.
• Wade v. Yeager
  415 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-29 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession in a joint trial does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if the co-defendant testifies and is available for cross-examination, even if the defendant chooses not to cross-examine. An unsigned confession is admissible i
• United States ex rel. George Dukes v. Wallack
  414 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-25 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The admission of co-defendants' confessions was not a Sixth Amendment violation, and the appellant's confession was admissible.
• United States v. Gregg
  414 F.2d 943· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-26 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while certain identification procedures and confession admissions were constitutionally questionable, they constituted harmless error due to the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• Goitia v. United States
  409 F.2d 524· 1st Cir.· 1969-04-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in continuing the trial in absentia, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel or reversible error in the presentation of the government's case.
• United States v. Jackson
  409 F.2d 8· 6th Cir.· 1969-04-11 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for severance, as the co-defendant's testimony was given in court, allowing for confrontation and cross-examination.
• United States ex rel. Edward F. LaBELLE v. Hon. Vincent Mancusi
  404 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-03 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The admission of a co-defendant's redacted confession, even with limiting instructions, violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and requires reversal of the conviction.
• Schneble v. State
  215 So. 2d 611· Fla.· 1968-11-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court following Bruton v. United States, the Florida Supreme Court reconsidered the murder convictions of Schneble and Snell. The court reversed Snell's conviction due to the admission of Schneble's confession at their joint trial, but affirmed Sch
• United States v. Hoffa
  402 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1968-08-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose certain reports and its alleged tailoring of evidence based on an illegally overheard conversation warranted reversal.
• United States v. Collier
  362 F.2d 135· 7th Cir.· 1966-06-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that entrapment was not established as a matter of law, and that the defendant's claims of juror misconduct, denial of confrontation rights, and denial of speedy trial were without merit.
• United States v. Rosenblum
  339 F.2d 473· 2d Cir.· 1964-12-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the mail fraud statute applies to misleading advertising schemes and that the trial court properly admitted evidence and considered the defendant's failure to testify.
• Wilmer T. Dixon v. United States
  333 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that denying the defendant the right to cross-examine a witness recalled by the judge after jury deliberations had begun, when the witness provided new testimony relevant to the case, was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Petition for Revision
  103 So. 2d 873· Fla.· 1956-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court granted a petition to amend the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar to authorize disciplinary proceedings against attorneys who join the Communist Party, while rejecting proposed rules that would treat invocation of the Fifth Amendment as prima facie evi
• Snead v. United States
  217 F.2d 912· 4th Cir.· 1954-12-10 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting evidence of an individual's bad reputation to prove they committed a crime in a civil forfeiture case constitutes reversible error.
• Insul-Wool Insulation Corp. v. Home Insulation, Inc.
  176 F.2d 502· 10th Cir.· 1949-07-25 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that depositions from a prior suit were admissible to prove prior knowledge and use, and that the patent was invalid due to prior public use and sale more than two years before the first patent application.
• Schita v. King
  133 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1943-02-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition, as the allegations, if true, could demonstrate a denial of due process.
• United States v. Johnson
  129 F.2d 954· 3d Cir.· 1942-06-30 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's exclusion from a courtroom during a legal argument, when the jury is absent, is not reversible error if it does not prejudice the defendant's opportunity to defend. The court also held that questions about income in years subsequent to the indict