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. Donahue
  948 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the indictment was sufficient, eyewitness identification was not impermissibly suggestive, hearsay testimony was harmless error, statements made to police were not custodial, and severance was not required.
• United States v. Kiser
  948 F.2d 418· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence seized under the good faith exception, denying suppression of testimony derived from an independent source, denying standing to challenge a search of an employee's car, finding counsel's stipulations harmles
• State v. Kleinfeld
  587 So. 2d 592· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-10-09 ·cited 10×
  The court reversed the trial court's order excluding the prior testimony of deceased witnesses, holding that such testimony is admissible at retrial if it contains indicia of reliability and was subject to cross-examination, even if the defendant was denied self-representation at
• Anson Avery Maynard v. Dixon
  943 F.2d 407· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition, affirming the denial of summary judgment on all grounds.
• United States v. Peralta
  941 F.2d 1003· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a co-conspirator's statements are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) even if the declarant was acquitted of conspiracy charges, and that expert testimony on the Stockholm Syndrome is admissible to explain a victim's behavior.
• United States v. Alfaro
  935 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the search of an employee was consensual under company policy, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute drugs in a prison context, and a witness's brief mention of an informant did not warrant a mistrial.
• Delgado v. State
  574 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-01-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's redacted confession, even if potentially incriminating, constituted harmless error due to jury instructions and overwhelming evidence, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Timothy Wayne Morrow (89-5418/5708)
  923 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions on drug manufacturing and conspiracy charges but vacated the conviction for carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense due to an inadequate jury instruction.
• United States v. Martinez-Perez
  916 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that admitting deposition testimony without proving witness unavailability violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and that a district court's upward departure from Sentencing Guidelines requires clear articulation of reasons tied to permissible grounds.
• United States v. Pratt
  913 F.2d 982· 1st Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that electronically intercepted communications were admissible under federal law, the entrapment defense was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the informant's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was valid. The court also found sufficient evidence for
• United States v. Aikins
  923 F.2d 650· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury selection process was invalid because a magistrate conducted voir dire without specific, individual consent from the defendants in a felony case, violating their right to have critical stages of trial presided over by a person with jurisdiction. The c
• United States v. Nichols
  910 F.2d 419· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in modifying the pattern jury instruction regarding the substantive law of conspiracy, as the modification was consistent with Supreme Court precedent and circuit law.
• United States v. Changa
  901 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination on witnesses' drug activities was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights or right to a fair trial. The court also held that the Sentencing Guidelines were properly applied by including c
• United States v. Shyres
  898 F.2d 647· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions for mail fraud, conspiracy, and tax offenses, but remanded for technical sentencing procedure compliance.
• Gomez v. Greer
  896 F.2d 252· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to consider exculpatory portions of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements as substantive evidence against the state.
• United States v. Anzalone
  886 F.2d 229· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the retrial was not barred by double jeopardy, the trial court did not err regarding transcript accuracy, presentence reports, or voir dire.
• Spain v. Rushen
  883 F.2d 712· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge's decision to shackle the defendant was not an abuse of discretion that denied due process, considering the specific security risks and the defendant's history.
• Jones v. Berry
  880 F.2d 670· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that even if the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to make an offer of proof regarding the relevance of the excluded questions and his trial counsel's actions obscured the intended purpose of the in
• United States v. Rantz
  862 F.2d 808· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel, the trial court did not err regarding the presentence report, and any error in requiring the petitioner to testify first was harmless.
• United States v. Roberto Ramos (87-3921)
  861 F.2d 461· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that evidence of co-conspirator actions after one conspirator's arrest is admissible, and that dismissing a juror for just cause and proceeding with eleven jurors is permissible under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b).
• Cook v. State
  531 So. 2d 1369· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-09-27 ·cited 10×
  Appellant was convicted of five counts of sexual battery on a child. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that physical evidence was lawfully seized pursuant to consent and that hearsay statements by the child victim, admitted under a Florida statute providing rel
• United States v. Klauer
  856 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting the cross-examination of a key witness regarding the specific details of his sentencing concessions, as the jury was already aware of the witness's motive and bias.
• Loylin King v. State
  525 So. 2d 924· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-05-03 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  A plaintiff must identify specific employment practices causing disparate impact and demonstrate that the disparity is the result of those practices, not merely show a statistical imbalance in the overall workforce.
• United States v. Roberts
  844 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Jennie Roberts' out-of-court statement was admissible because it possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, satisfying both Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and the Confrontation Clause.
• Reardon v. Manson
  806 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-20 ·cited 10×
  The admission of drug-identification testimony by a state toxicologist, based on tests performed by chemists under his supervision, did not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Joyner v. King
  786 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his Sixth Amendment claim due to new factual allegations presented in federal court, and the state did not waive its right to assert the exhaustion requirement.
• United States v. Lewis
  786 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants were not deprived of their Sixth Amendment rights regarding counsel and that the government's use of redacted grand jury testimony was not erroneous.
• Jackson v. Scully
  781 F.2d 291· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment confrontation claim, Fourth Amendment illegal arrest claim, and Fifth Amendment Miranda rights claim were procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas review, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Wolfe
  766 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions, as the evidence was sufficient, the co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the prior conviction evidence was properly handled.
• United States v. Hansen
  755 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the apartment building was used in interstate commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) jurisdiction, but reversed Hansen's life sentence due to lack of jury recommendation.
• State v. T.L.W.
  457 So. 2d 566· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-10-10 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State of Florida appealed the suppression of cocaine evidence that was consumed during chemical testing by the state chemist. The court held that the destruction of evidence during legitimate chemical analysis does not constitute a due process violation, and therefore reverse
• United States v. Posner
  594 F. Supp. 930· S.D. Fla.· 1984-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the press has a First Amendment right to inspect and copy tax returns admitted into evidence in a criminal trial, which outweighs the defendant's asserted privacy and fair trial interests when the information is already part of the public record.
• Walker v. Maggio
  738 F.2d 714· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness accorded to the state court's finding that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
• United States v. Walney Barrick Bodden
  736 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions of four defendants and dismissed the appeal of another, finding no merit in the challenges to the sufficiency of evidence or the limitations on cross-examination.
• Henshaw v. Kelly
  440 So. 2d 2· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-10-13 ·cited 10×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  Ralph Henshaw, a deputy sheriff, challenges the termination of his employment by Volusia County Manager Kelly, which was imposed following a Personnel Board hearing that had recommended only suspension. The court upholds the manager's authority under county Personnel Rules to imp
• State v. Reeves
  444 So. 2d 20· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-10-07 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State appeals a trial court's dismissal of a drug trafficking information against Scott Reeves based on the court's finding that a confidential informant-eyewitness refused to testify due to improper promises made by a detective. The appellate court reverses, holding that dis
• United States v. Ruff
  717 F.2d 855· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the admission of the co-defendant's unredacted statements was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• United States v. POE
  713 F.2d 579· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  A retrial is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause when a mistrial is declared at the defendants' request, unless the mistrial was caused by prosecutorial misconduct intended to subvert double jeopardy protections.
• Taylor v. Curry
  708 F.2d 886· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the exclusion of the draft separation agreement was an error, it did not deprive the petitioner of a fundamentally fair trial, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• In the Interest of W.B.
  428 So. 2d 309· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-03-16 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A fourteen-year-old juvenile appeals a 1979 adjudication of delinquency for breaking and entering, arguing the guilty plea was involuntary. The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine plea voluntariness, holding that a juvenile has habeas corpus rights
• LaCHAPPELLE v. Moran
  699 F.2d 560· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's in camera conference with a minor witness, while unusual, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Vogel v. Percy
  691 F.2d 843· 7th Cir.· 1982-10-29 ·cited 10×
  The admission of a witness's prior inconsistent, unsworn statement as substantive evidence did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation or Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, provided the witness is available for cross-examination and the
• United States v. Moschetta
  673 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and firearms convictions, and that the admission of a CIA affidavit did not violate the confrontation clause.
• Bailey v. State
  411 So. 2d 1377· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-04-07 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  Bailey was convicted of manslaughter for shooting his six-year-old daughter. He appeals on the ground that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by refusing to allow cross-examination of his wife about an alleged affair. The appellate court affi
• Olson v. Green
  668 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The admission of the accomplice's custodial statements was harmless error because the properly admitted evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the statements was insignificant.
• United States v. Young
  655 F.2d 624· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in sustaining objections to irrelevant cross-examination, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and that there was no plain error in failing to instruct on simple possession.
• The United States v. Rothbart
  653 F.2d 462· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a deposition taken in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause was not harmless error.
• United States v. Webb
  633 F.2d 1140· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly allowed the admission of a confession and consent to search obtained in violation of the suspect's right to counsel.
• State v. Lenard B. Dolen, Jr.
  390 So. 2d 407· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-11-05 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The trial court erred in denying the state's motion for a protective order based on an absolute right of confrontation at a discovery deposition.
• Rolle v. State
  386 So. 2d 3· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-07-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  Ronald Rolle appeals his grand larceny conviction, challenging the trial judge's refusal to allow cross-examination of a prosecution witness about an ongoing perjury investigation. The court affirms, holding that while defendants may generally cross-examine prosecution witnesses