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

• Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Robinson
  93 So. 3d 1090· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-06-27 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles appealed a circuit court decision that invalidated Robinson's driver's license suspension after the arresting officer failed to appear at an administrative review hearing. The Second District Court of Appeal denied the p
• State v. Torry M. Jones
  30 So. 3d 619· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-03-12 ·cited 13×
  The State of Florida petitioned for a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's pretrial order excluding urinalysis test results from evidence in a sexual offense case. Although the appellate court found the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by excl
• Javado Thompson v. State
  995 So. 2d 532· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-08-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the deceased victim's prior testimony from an adversarial preliminary hearing was admissible as former testimony because the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
• Shennett v. State
  937 So. 2d 287· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-09-13 ·cited 13×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Jermaine Shennett's convictions for attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools because the trial court admitted inadmissible testimonial hearsay in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washin
• Zuluaga v. State
  915 So. 2d 1251· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-12-21 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  Giovanni Zuluaga was convicted of trafficking in Ecstasy following a jury trial. He appealed claiming error in the admission of hearsay evidence, improper credibility bolstering of an informant, and improper closing argument. The court affirmed the conviction, finding any evident
• State v. Roberson
  884 So. 2d 976· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-09-17 ·cited 13×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a criminal defendant charged with sex crimes could obtain pre-trial discovery of the alleged victim's mental health records. The court held that while Baker Act commitment records are subject to in camera inspection under
• Cadet v. State
  809 So. 2d 43· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-02-06 ·cited 13×
  Ernest Cadet was convicted of capital sexual battery and battery against a five-year-old girl. On appeal, Cadet challenged the trial court's failure to ensure a Creole interpreter remained present throughout trial and the admission of collateral crimes evidence involving sexual a
• Alwin Charles Tumblin v. State
  747 So. 2d 442· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-12-15 ·cited 13×
  Tumblin was convicted of attempted robbery with a firearm, attempted carjacking with a firearm, and shooting a deadly missile. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that an officer's testimony implying the co-defendant identified Tumblin as the perp
• Pomeranz v. State
  634 So. 2d 1145· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-04-13 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  A trial court abuses its discretion by unreasonably restricting cross-examination of a codefendant witness regarding separate criminal charges that create a motive to adjust testimony, and by preventing inquiry into an eyewitness's potential motive to fabricate.
• State v. Camejo
  641 So. 2d 109· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-03-25 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal quashed a trial court order compelling a sexual battery victim to undergo a psychological examination. The court held that absent strong and compelling evidence, trial courts lack practical authority to compel victims to submit to psycho
• United States v. Williams
  963 F.2d 1337· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in finding a due process violation based on the referral to federal prosecution and improperly departed from sentencing guidelines. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of juven
• United States v. Taylor
  931 F.2d 842· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 13×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Taylor's probation sentence and re-sentence him while he was in the custody of the Attorney General and under the supervision of the U.S. Parole Commission.
• United States v. Charles Hughes (88-1658)
  895 F.2d 1135· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the defendants' convictions for their roles in a fraudulent medical clinic's operation, affirming the district court's judgments.
• United States v. Valentin Eufracio-Torres
  890 F.2d 266· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting deposition testimony of unavailable witnesses and prior convictions for illegal entry, as the government made reasonable efforts to secure attendance and the prior convictions were relevant to knowledge.
• United States v. Gallo
  863 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 13×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed all judgments of conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or procedural matters.
• Spillers v. A.L. Lockhart
  802 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for habeas corpus, as the appellant's claims were either conclusory, failed to demonstrate prejudice, or were barred from review.
• United States v. Wilmer
  799 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal rules of evidence apply in prosecutions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, and that the admission of the breathalyzer calibration report was harmless error. The court also found sufficient evidence that the defendant was driving.
• United States v. Atwell
  766 F.2d 416· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of uncharged crimes, and that no Brady violation occurred as the issue was not preserved.
• United States v. Caputo
  758 F.2d 944· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 13×
  The majority's holding that the Confrontation Clause requires a showing of co-conspirator unavailability before their statements are admissible is an unwarranted extension of precedent.
• United States v. Reubin W. Peaden
  727 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay statements for a non-hearsay purpose (to show why a witness remembered a conversation) was not an abuse of discretion, even without a limiting instruction, as it did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Harley
  682 F.2d 1018· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in sustaining the government's objection to revealing the exact location of the surveillance post, as the surveillance location privilege applies at trial and Harley failed to demonstrate a sufficient need for the information.
• United States v. Colacurcio
  514 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 13×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on specific amounts of payments received from a third party based on collateral estoppel, and in admitting the appellant's 1965 tax return in conjunction with that improper instruction.
• United States ex rel. Joel Smith v. Montanye
  505 F.2d 1355· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state judicial remedies and because the grounds alleged did not properly raise a constitutional issue.
• Bates v. Nelson
  485 F.2d 90· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of co-defendant statements in violation of Bruton v. United States and the admission of prior convictions invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright were harmless errors beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus pe
• Holley v. State
  48 So. 3d 916· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-11-17 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Norman Lanel Holley appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a firearm by an adjudicated delinquent. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly limiting
• Richards v. State
  37 So. 3d 925· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-06-09 ·cited 12×
  David Richards was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell based on evidence that he possessed seven individually wrapped bags of a white powdery substance, only one of which was laboratory tested for cocaine. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convic
• Lidiano v. State
  967 So. 2d 972· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-10-24 ·cited 12×
  Roberto Lidiano appeals his convictions for two counts of attempted second-degree murder, challenging the trial court's denial of a peremptory challenge to juror Emelia Abadin and denials of his motions for mistrial based on alleged hearsay testimony by Detective Elosegui. The co
• Dawson v. State
  951 So. 2d 931· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-02-28 ·cited 12×
  Appellant Dawson appeals his conviction for cocaine sale and possession near a church, challenging the trial court's failure to dismiss charges when the state could not provide the confidential informant's address. The court affirms the conviction but reverses the sentence as con
• Vondyleyn M. Sutton v. State
  929 So. 2d 1105· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-05-10 ·cited 12×
  Vondyleyn Sutton was convicted of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder committed with a firearm. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence regarding his
• Rivera v. State
  917 So. 2d 210· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-09-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that admitting a FDLE lab report through a records custodian, without the chemist's testimony, violates the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights in a criminal trial.
• W.C. v. Smith
  898 So. 2d 1137· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-03-31 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  A juvenile is entitled to habeas corpus relief if not afforded due process rights in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding.
• Gardiner S. Somervell v. State
  883 So. 2d 836· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-07-30 ·cited 12×
  Gardiner Somervell appeals his conviction for attempted lewd and lascivious conduct with an 8-year-old, arguing that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated by the admission of hearsay statements from child victims. The court affirms, holding that while one stateme
• State v. Eusebio Hernandez
  875 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in suppressing the co-defendant's out-of-court statements, as their admission would violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
• Grice v. City OF Kissimmee & Kissimmee Police Dep't
  697 So. 2d 186· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-07-18 ·cited 12×
  Two police officers challenged their terminations by the City of Kissimmee, claiming denial of procedural due process. The court held that police officers have a property interest in their employment and are entitled to post-termination due process rights, including the opportuni
• Cornell Austin and Kelvin Leroy Bryant aka Jit v. State
  679 So. 2d 1197· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-07-31 ·cited 12×
  Cornell Austin and Kelvin Bryant appeal their convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, arson, and conspiracy arising from a violent crime spree in which six co-defendants robbed, sexually battered, and murdered victims by throwing them
• Colina v. State
  634 So. 2d 1077· Fla.· 1994-04-07 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Manuel Colina appeals his death sentence imposed upon resentencing following a prior conviction reversal for murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death penalty, addressing claims regarding witness confrontation, heinous/atrocious/cruel murder findings, and comparative se
• Hallman v. State
  633 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-02-22 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Richard Hallman appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine after police conducted a controlled delivery operation following the interception of a drug transaction. The Third District affirms the convictions, finding that although the t
• United States v. Derr
  990 F.2d 1330· D.C. Cir.· 1993-04-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant 'used' a firearm in relation to drug possession, but sufficient to prove drug possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Miller
  974 F.2d 953· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the use of handcuffs during an investigative stop was reasonable, and a defendant's abandonment of a bag negated a Fourth Amendment claim. It also affirmed the denial of severance motions based on a redacted confession and the admission of prior bad acts evide
• United States v. Saks
  964 F.2d 1514· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) for obtaining money by false pretenses, not § 1344(1) for defrauding a financial institution.
• United States v. Beckham
  968 F.2d 47· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a co-conspirator's statement was admissible as an adoptive admission, but remanded for resentencing because the district court misunderstood its authority to depart downward under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• Lufkins v. Leapley
  965 F.2d 1477· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The admission of witness statements, even if their cross-examination was ineffective, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant's confession and other corroborating evidence were overwhelming.
• Hernandez v. State
  597 So. 2d 408· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-04-21 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that allowing child witnesses to testify via closed-circuit television did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights, as the procedure was necessary to prevent severe emotional harm and ensured testimony reliability.
• Cook v. State
  595 So. 2d 994· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-03 ·cited 12×
  Rodney Cook was convicted of first-degree murder in a joint trial with co-defendant Tapia. The appellate court reversed his conviction and sentence, finding that the trial court violated Cook's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by admitting incriminating statements from the no
• United States v. Payne
  944 F.2d 1458· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the failure to give a presumption of innocence instruction to the jury after it was sworn was not plain error because the purposes of the instruction were adequately served by other instructions and the jury's awareness of the presumption. The court also held
• United States v. Carland A. Bowser
  941 F.2d 1019· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  A downward departure from career offender status based on age and timing of prior offenses is not justified when these factors were adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
• United States v. Gomez-Lemos
  939 F.2d 326· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that under prior Sixth Circuit precedent, grand jury testimony of unavailable witnesses may be admissible if it possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, even without a finding of waiver by the defendant.
• Garrett Emil Wright v. State
  582 So. 2d 774· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-07-17 ·cited 12×
  Garrett Emil Wright was convicted of armed robbery by a jury in Florida state court. On appeal, Wright challenged the trial court's admission of hearsay testimony from an investigating officer regarding statements made by witness Willie Burnett. The appellate court affirmed the c
• Francesco Polizzi v. United States
  926 F.2d 1311· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant's right to be present at trial can be waived, and such waiver can be established through counsel and the court's own recollection, even if not explicitly recorded, provided it is knowing and voluntary.
• United States v. Houtchens
  926 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  A defendant may be tried in absentia if, after sufficient notice, they knowingly and voluntarily fail to appear for trial. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not addressed on direct appeal. A district judge's statement that disputed sentencing facts do not affect the se