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. Lowrimore
  923 F.2d 590· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the sentencing procedure violated the Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
• Lewis v. State
  570 So. 2d 412· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-11-21 ·cited 12×
  Cornelius Ray Lewis was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and five counts of sexual activity with a child under 18 while in a position of custodial authority. On appeal, Lewis challenged the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regardin
• Clark v. State
  572 So. 2d 929· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-11-15 ·cited 12×
  Clark appeals his convictions for armed burglary and grand theft, challenging the trial court's admission of a discovery deposition as substantive evidence and the imposition of departure sentences. The court held that admission of the discovery deposition violated his Sixth Amen
• United States v. Myers
  917 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's trial counsel's strategic decisions, including not moving for severance and not requesting a cautionary jury instruction, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington.
• United States v. Mayes
  917 F.2d 457· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' claims regarding delays, severance, discovery, witness subpoenas, pro se representation, admissibility of recordings, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing guidelines were without merit.
• United States v. Crosby
  917 F.2d 362· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  A defendant who voluntarily fails to appear for the commencement of their criminal trial waives the protections of Rule 43 and the right to be present.
• United States v. Cruz
  910 F.2d 1072· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements made after arrest, finding probable cause for the arrest and adequate Miranda warnings. The court also affirmed the admissibility of the unidentified woman's statement as a co-conspira
• Rodriguez v. Young
  906 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that while counsel's failure to move for suppression of identification testimony was objectively unreasonable, the identification was sufficiently reliable to be admissible, and there was no miscarriage of justi
• United States v. Solomon Bitton Simtob
  901 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit a tape recording potentially showing witness perjury and that the prosecutor improperly vouched for a witness's credibility, requiring reversal.
• Williamson v. State
  559 So. 2d 723· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-04-16 ·cited 12×
  William Edward Williamson appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court affirmed dismissal of two claims but reversed and remanded the claim regarding counsel's failure to object to closed-circuit television testimony of
• Dziurgot v. Luther
  897 F.2d 1222· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  A district court cannot dismiss a claim of a drug-induced waiver of the right to be present at trial based solely on the judge's personal observation; an evidentiary hearing is required if the allegations are not conclusively contradicted by the record.
• United States v. Reeves
  892 F.2d 1223· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of unrelated solicitations, limiting cross-examination, denying discovery of certain tapes, disqualifying counsel, or in its jury instructions and sentencing departure. The convictions for extortion and cons
• LEE v. McCAUGHTRY
  892 F.2d 1318· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court accusations, offered to show the defendant's response and not for their truth, did not violate the Confrontation Clause, especially with a limiting instruction and prosecutor's argument consistent with that limitation.
• Dunn v. Simmons
  877 F.2d 1275· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the Kentucky Supreme Court's procedure for challenging guilty pleas does not violate the Constitution, as it requires the defendant to present evidence of invalidity before the state must prove the plea's validity.
• Sanders v. Lane
  861 F.2d 1033· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 12×
  A judicial order prohibiting attorney-client communication during a trial recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but such a violation is subject to harmless error analysis if it does not contaminate the entire proceeding.
• Chambers v. State
  530 So. 2d 452· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-08-31 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying a motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing, as the grounds for denial were not conclusively supported by the record and a new legal precedent might apply.
• United States v. Gambize Schardar
  850 F.2d 1457· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for wire fraud, making and uttering false bills of lading, and interstate transportation of property taken by fraud were supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying
• Leviston v. Black
  843 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the interviews, and therefore Miranda warnings were not required.
• Rosario v. Kuhlman
  839 F.2d 918· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 12×
  The trial court's refusal to admit impeaching testimony regarding the sole identifying witness's presence at the crime scene constituted a constitutional error, as it deprived the defendant of his due process right to present a defense.
• Farrish v. Miss. State Parole Bd.
  836 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Officials who conducted a preliminary parole revocation hearing are absolutely immune from damages, but the Commissioner of Corrections is only entitled to qualified immunity for failing to establish adequate procedures.
• United States v. Rubin
  836 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a witness or in quashing a subpoena for foreign bank records, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and sentence.
• United States v. Matias
  836 F.2d 744· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding a defendant's motive to testify falsely was unbalanced and prejudicial, warranting reversal for Matías, Sr. The court affirmed Caraballo's conviction, finding no merit in his other claims.
• United States v. Bartle
  835 F.2d 646· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-17 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for making a false statement to the INS should be affirmed, as there was no material variance between the indictment and the proof, the admission of evidence not disclosed in discovery was permissible, and the trial court did not err
• United States v. Ismaili
  828 F.2d 153· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to depose foreign witnesses, applying a standard of proof to the defendant's request that was significantly higher than that used for government requests.
• United States v. Dempewolf
  817 F.2d 1318· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, refusing an addict-informer instruction, admitting certain evidence, denying severance, or finding the evidence sufficient to convict.
• Nilsa Ortiz v. Eichler
  794 F.2d 889· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 12×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that Delaware's pre-hearing notice requirements for welfare benefits must be detailed, including calculations and reasons, and that claimants have a right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses under federal regulations.
• United States v. Pecora
  798 F.2d 614· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the defendants violated the Taft-Hartley Act, which served as predicate acts for their RICO convictions.
• United States v. Pendegraph
  791 F.2d 1462· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The admission of a redacted co-defendant's statement was a Bruton violation for armed bank robbery, but harmless error for simple bank robbery, as there was other evidence of guilt for the lesser offense.
• United States v. Coppola
  788 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the co-defendant's out-of-court statements were admissible and did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper.
• United States v. Adams
  785 F.2d 917· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while ex parte conferences between a judge and a witness are unusual and must be carefully conducted, they are permissible in certain circumstances, and in this case, despite some procedural irregularities, the appellants suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Grandison
  780 F.2d 425· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of photographs, restrictions on a self-represented defendant's movements, the government's use of peremptory challenges, the admission of grand jury testimony, the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and the e
• United States v. Affleck
  776 F.2d 1451· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony based on hearsay, denying a change of venue, or excluding the testimony of a 'memory expert,' and that the appellant received a fair trial.
• Travieso v. State
  480 So. 2d 100· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-10 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Victor Travieso and Manuel Esteban Perez were convicted of trafficking in cannabis in excess of 100 pounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Travieso's conviction due to prosecutorial error (comment on the right to remain silent) and lack of standing ruling, but affir
• Riner v. Owens
  764 F.2d 1253· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The majority holds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause and prejudice to overcome waiver of his Sixth Amendment claim. The dissenting judge would hold that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice and thus the claim should be denied.
• Adamson v. Ricketts
  758 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of certain hearsay statements was a Confrontation Clause violation but harmless error, and that Arizona's death penalty statute is constitutional as applied.
• Cornell Fitzpatrick v. Procunier
  750 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief, finding no error in the denial of a continuance, the destruction of evidence, or the failure to produce an informant.
• United States v. Jewell Dean Pickett (83-5252)
  746 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted confession that still allowed the jury to infer the identity of a codefendant violated the Bruton rule, and this error was not harmless as to that codefendant. Other alleged errors were found to be without merit.
• Houser v. State
  456 So. 2d 1265· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-09-26 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Thomas Wayne Houser appeals his convictions for DWI manslaughter and vehicular homicide arising from a single-victim car accident. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to the admission of blood alcohol evidence despite
• United States v. Boone
  738 F.2d 763· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the victim judge was engaged in the performance of her official duties when assaulted, and that the admission of credit card slips did not deny the defendant his Confrontation Rights.
• Wolff v. United States
  737 F.2d 877· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner waived his constitutional claims by failing to raise them at his court-martial, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Koontz v. Glossa
  731 F.2d 365· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that amending the indictment without returning to the grand jury, changing the charge from direct arson to arson for hire, violated the petitioner's due process rights by denying him fair notice of the charges and sufficient time to prepare a defense.
• Barber v. Scully
  731 F.2d 1073· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-04 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit to the speedy trial claim and that any error in admitting state of mind testimony was harmless.
• United States v. Oltrado Michaelangelo Lisotto
  722 F.2d 85· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because sufficient independent evidence established the conspiracy and the defendants' participation, and the declarants were unavailable and their statements reliable.
• Green v. Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs of the City OF Indianapolis
  716 F.2d 1191· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A public employee's dismissal hearing is constitutionally adequate if the employee is informed of the charges and given an opportunity to disprove them, even if accusers' identities are kept secret.
• United States ex rel. Ronnie Lee Cunningham v. DeROBERTIS
  719 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  A habeas petitioner cannot claim a violation of another person's Fifth Amendment rights when that person's confession was determined to be voluntary and was not used at the petitioner's trial.
• Camitsch v. Risley
  705 F.2d 351· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the denial of access to juvenile witness case files did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights, and the application of a narrower state law standard for jury instructions on appeal did not violate due process.
• United States v. Porter
  701 F.2d 1158· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-10 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated by the denial of discovery of classified surveillance equipment, the prosecutor's comments, or the warrantless arrest of Brickey, and affirmed the jury convictions.
• United States v. Suchart Chanya
  700 F.2d 192· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court's inquiry into the numerical division of a jury during deliberations constitutes reversible error, regardless of whether coercion is shown.
• United States v. Thompson
  708 F.2d 1294· 8th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the trial court improperly admitted prejudicial lay opinion testimony and hearsay evidence.
• Rivera v. Marcus
  696 F.2d 1016· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state must ensure children's best interests are the foremost consideration when removing them from parental care, and parents must have a fair opportunity to participate in hearings concerning custody.