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

• Symons v. Klinger
  372 F.2d 47· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights were not violated, and the evidence seized was admissible. Habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
• Barber v. Page
  381 F.2d 479· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-30 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state's failure to make any effort to produce a witness constituted a denial of the defendant's right to confrontation.
• United States ex rel. John F. McBRIDE v. Hon. Edward M. FAY
  370 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1966-12-27 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the writ because the petitioner had not yet sought relief in the state courts on his newly raised Sixth Amendment claim.
• Carlisle v. State
  137 So. 3d 479· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-03-26 ·cited 11×
  Christopher Carlisle was convicted of sexual battery on a child based primarily on the victim's testimony and controlled phone calls. The Fourth District reversed because the trial court improperly excluded evidence that the victim had previously recanted similar allegations agai
• State v. LaBRON
  24 So. 3d 715· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-12-23 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's identity in a cocaine delivery case where the defendant claimed entrapment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by ordering disclosure withou
• Acosta v. State
  956 So. 2d 1235· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-05-23 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for burglary and grand theft, and affirmed the prison releasee reoffender sentence.
• Pflieger v. State
  952 So. 2d 1251· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-04-11 ·cited 11×
  Annual inspection reports of breath testing instruments are non-testimonial and their admission into evidence does not violate the Confrontation Clause, even without the inspector testifying.
• State v. Brunel Hosty
  944 So. 2d 255· Fla.· 2006-11-09 ·cited 11×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida's hearsay exception for statements by mentally disabled adults, section 90.803(24), is constitutional as applied to nontestimonial statements made shortly after abuse, but unconstitutional as applied to testimonial statements made to la
• State v. Abreu
  837 So. 2d 400· Fla.· 2003-01-09 ·cited 11×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 90.803(22), Florida Statutes, violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause when applied in criminal proceedings to permit use of a witness's prior testimony without a showing of unavailability. The court affirmed the Fourth Distric
• Baber v. State
  738 So. 2d 379· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-23 ·cited 11×
  James Baber was convicted of DUI manslaughter and DUI with personal injury after striking a vehicle and killing its driver. The key issue was whether a blood alcohol report prepared by a hospital for medical purposes could be admitted as a business record in a criminal case witho
• United States v. Petty
  982 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-07 ·cited 11×
  The dissent argues that the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause require defendants to have the right to confront witnesses at sentencing, especially under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines where factual determinations have a significant impact on the sentence.
• United States v. Soto
  959 F.2d 1181· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's post-arrest statement was harmless error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also affirmed the sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Butt
  955 F.2d 77· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing regarding the enhancement for interference with justice, agreeing with the government that the district court erred in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines to defendant Butt.
• United States v. Gregorio de Jesus Mares
  940 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession, and that the prosecutor's and judge's actions did not violate the defendants' rights.
• United States v. Burton
  937 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 11×
• Jones v. Dugger
  888 F.2d 1340· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the admission of the child victim's out-of-court statements did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the child testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. The court also held that the defendant's due proces
• United States v. Vontsteen
  872 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  Invoices mailed after goods were shipped and credit terms finalized do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for mail fraud, but evidence was sufficient to convict for interstate transportation of stolen property.
• United States v. Vowiell
  869 F.2d 1264· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 11×
  The court holds that the conviction of Vowiell should be reversed.
• Young v. State
  522 So. 2d 540· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-03-29 ·cited 11×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Florida appellate court reversed a manslaughter conviction because the trial court improperly restricted cross-examination of the key prosecution witness on matters affecting credibility, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right.
• United States v. Pitocchelli
  830 F.2d 401· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Thomas
  705 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the admission of grand jury testimony from unavailable witnesses was permissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Sixth Amendment, and that the reindictment was timely under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Faison
  679 F.2d 292· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(4) when admitting prior testimony, and that the Confrontation Clause, not the rule, requires specific findings on witness unavailability.
• United States v. McCALLUM
  677 F.2d 1024· 4th Cir.· 1982-05-05 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the introduction of hearsay evidence, specifically a letter from a community treatment center, during a probation revocation hearing did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
• United States v. Tierney
  448 F.2d 37· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the transcript, counsel, admission of a co-defendant's statement, or suppression of evidence seized abroad.
• Brown v. State
  223 So. 2d 337· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-05-13 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a judge, acting as trier of fact in a bench trial, is not prejudiced by the admission of confessions that would be inadmissible in a jury trial, and that a defendant who retains private counsel waives the right to claim ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Henzel v. State
  212 So. 2d 92· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-06-18 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Leo Henzel appeals his conviction for grand larceny by fraudulent representation, claiming he was denied his right to be present at trial when prosecution witnesses testified in his absence. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that Henzel waived his right
• Clarington v. State
  314 So. 3d 495· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-01-13 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The remote conduct of a probation violation hearing via audio-video technology, where all participants including the defendant and counsel are in separate locations, does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation or due process when conducted as a tempora
• Blair v. State
  25 So. 3d 46· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-12-04 ·cited 10×
  Douglas Blair was tried for DUI with serious bodily injury but failed to appear on the second day of trial. The trial court proceeded in his absence based on the belief he was voluntarily absenting himself, and a jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of DUI with perso
• Battle v. State
  19 So. 3d 1045· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-09-30 ·cited 10×
  Henry Battle appeals his conviction for burglary, theft, and battery, challenging the admission of hearsay testimony from unavailable witnesses, opinion testimony regarding his guilt, and evidence of his alias. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on Co
• Ferrer v. State
  2 So. 3d 1111· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-02-18 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief on most grounds but reversed on the claim that counsel's misadvice about impeachment with prior convictions deprived appellant of his right to testify, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
• Boone v. State
  967 So. 2d 999· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-10-26 ·cited 10×
  Willie Boone appeals from a probation revocation and 30-year sentence imposed after he committed new crimes while on probation. The court affirmed the probation revocation based on sufficient evidence but reversed the sentence as exceeding the legal maximum under the "true split
• Diaz v. State
  890 So. 2d 556· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-01-14 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court reversed a conviction for delivery of heroin, finding that an undercover officer's testimony summarizing conversations with an intermediary constituted inadmissible hearsay.
• In re Commitment OF Gary Burton. Gary Burton v. State
  884 So. 2d 1112· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-10-22 ·cited 10×
  The trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting expert testimony regarding actuarial risk-assessment instruments (RRASOR, PCL-R, and SVR-20) to establish that Burton qualifies as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act, and the commitment order is affirm
• In & for Sussex Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2003-09-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the charges arising from the two murders were properly joined and that the defendants failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice to warrant severance. The court found that the offenses were of a similar character, connected by a common scheme or plan, and that
• A.E.B. v. State
  818 So. 2d 534· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-01-16 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  A.E.B., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent for trespass and resisting an officer. The appellate court reversed the trespass adjudication because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony from a deputy sheriff regarding statements made by a witness with memory loss, b
• Judd v. State
  781 So. 2d 440· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-02-28 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Caroline Judd was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to sell based on officer surveillance. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding two critical errors: the trial court improperly refused to require the officer to disclose his surveillance location without
• Allison v. State
  661 So. 2d 889· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-10-11 ·cited 10×
  Michael Jude Allison was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his former wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the erroneous admission of hearsay statements from child witnesses, finding that
• Jarrett v. State
  654 So. 2d 973· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-21 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  Stephen Jarrett was convicted of theft of a motor vehicle after a jury trial conducted entirely in his absence, despite no lawful waiver of his right to be present. The court reversed because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180 clearly requires the defendant's presence at th
• United States v. Arambula-Ruiz
  987 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a prior drug conviction for knowledge and intent was proper under Rule 404(b), and co-conspirator statements were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E); errors in admitting prior arrests were harmless, and no Bruton error occurred.
• United States v. Norquay
  987 F.2d 475· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed Norquay's conviction and sentence, affirmed Schoenborn's conviction, but reversed Schoenborn's sentence and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Timothy Wayne Morrow (89-5418/5708) & George Mooneyham (89-5710)
  977 F.2d 222· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Morrow's conviction for aiding and abetting the carrying of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
• State v. RAY
  604 So. 2d 1249· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-09-02 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal quashed a trial court order compelling a crime victim to appear at a live lineup for identification purposes. The court held that Florida law does not authorize compelling crime victims to participate in lineups absent a showing of comp
• United States v. Beaumont
  972 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-27 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not commit plain error in its jury instruction on structuring and did not commit reversible error in refusing to sever the defendant's case.
• Smith v. Collins
  964 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as the alleged errors did not rise to the level of constitutional violations or were harmless.
• United States v. McGLORY
  968 F.2d 309· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, but the concurring opinion questions the sufficiency of coded conversations as evidence and analyzes the ambiguity in sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
• United States v. Arias-Santana
  964 F.2d 1262· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the admission of a police report to rebut an implied charge of recent fabrication was proper, and that claims regarding witness sequestration and jury instructions were waived or waived and reviewed for plain error, with no such error found.
• United States v. Torres
  965 F.2d 303· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not constitute plain error, and the limitation on cross-examination was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Robert Holmes (91-3735)
  961 F.2d 599· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(vii) are constitutional, and that using corroborated hearsay in a pre-sentence report for sentence enhancement does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Comeaux
  955 F.2d 586· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the warrantless search of garbage was permissible, search warrants were supported by probable cause, redacted codefendant statements were admissible, and the vicarious liability instruction was proper.
• United States v. Haren
  952 F.2d 190· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants, finding sufficient evidence for convictions, no reversible error in jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and no abuse of discretion in sentencing enhancements.