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

• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Blyden
  626 F.2d 310· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the defendants guilty of unlawful entry and petty larceny, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Fletcher Williams
  631 F.2d 198· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-23 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney's decision not to use recanting affidavits was a reasonable tactical choice based on concerns about duress and potential harm to the client's case.
• Corbett v. Bordenkircher
  615 F.2d 722· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge would have remanded the case for a determination of prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• United States v. Cornejo
  598 F.2d 554· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress was not erroneous, affirming the convictions.
• Wilson v. Harris
  595 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  A defendant who voluntarily and knowingly absents himself from his trial, through disruptive conduct or refusal to appear, waives his constitutional right to be present.
• United States v. Davis
  578 F.2d 277· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were valid, rejecting claims of Brady violations, double jeopardy, merger of offenses, and inadmissible hearsay.
• Ferrell v. Estelle
  568 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to provide adequate means for a deaf defendant to understand the proceedings, thus violating his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and to assist in his defense.
• Stidham v. Wyrick
  567 F.2d 836· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-29 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the procedures employed to revoke Stidham's parole complied with due process, and thus his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Cook v. State
  353 So. 2d 911· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-12-28 ·cited 10×
  Four defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit sexual battery and sexual battery following a joint trial. The court affirmed their convictions despite assuming a potential Bruton violation occurred when codefendants' incriminating statements were admitted at trial, findin
• Annunziato v. Manson
  566 F.2d 410· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state's failure to disclose a key witness's leniency agreement, which led to false testimony, violated the defendant's constitutional rights and warranted a new trial.
• United States v. Morgan
  562 F.2d 1001· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire, suppression of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, or motions for mistrial/severance.
• Mills v. Estelle
  552 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The Sixth Amendment confrontation clause does not compel admission of a prosecution witness's remote prior conviction for general impeachment purposes when there is no claim of bias or official pressure.
• United States v. Wigerman
  549 F.2d 1192· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-25 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of the stolen goods' market value and that the business records were properly admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6).
• United States v. Eristello Sesena Provencio
  554 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the introduction of deposition testimony without proof of witness unavailability and without a stipulation permitting its use violated the appellants' constitutional right to confrontation, compelling reversal.
• United States v. Demchak
  545 F.2d 1029· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that striking a father's adverse testimony against his son and instructing the jury to disregard it was insufficient to cure the prejudice, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Schaffer
  539 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to use and actual use of extortionate means to collect an extension of credit was supported by ample evidence and that the indictment was sufficient.
• Hill v. State
  330 So. 2d 487· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-04-15 ·cited 10×
  Roger Dean Hill appeals his rape conviction, challenging the admission of a tape-recorded statement by a co-accused who invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. The court reversed Hill's conviction, holding that admitting the extrajudicial statement violated the Confro
• McDONALD v. The United States
  531 F.2d 490· Ct. Cl.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Uniform Code of Military Justice's combination of roles for the convening authority does not, on the facts presented, violate the Due Process Clause.
• United States v. Prevatt
  526 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress bank records, admitting certain evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the record contained sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
• McGRATH v. Vinzant
  528 F.2d 681· 1st Cir.· 1976-01-16 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in creating a new exception to witness protection rules and shifting the burden of proof to the defendant without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez
  519 F.2d 1052· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession, even when used by the prosecutor for corroboration, did not require reversal where the confession did not directly inculpate the defendant and the evidence against him was overwhelming.
• Stephan v. United States
  496 F.2d 527· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-26 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that it was not error for the District Court to deny relief on motions to vacate judgment and sentence because the issues presented had been decided on direct appeal.
• United States v. Bagsby
  489 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination regarding a polygraph examination and state parole status, as appellants were afforded sufficient opportunity to explore witness motives.
• Courtney v. United States
  486 F.2d 1108· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-27 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that any technical violation of the Bruton rule was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the joint representation, while precluding cross-examination of a co-defendant, did not prejudice the appellant given the cooperative defense strategy and the witness's s
• Lockett v. Henderson
  484 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-31 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A guilty plea is voluntary even if the accused is not specifically apprised of the right to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and right to confront accusers. The district court's memorandum of reasons was sufficient under Rule 52(a).
• United States v. Kitchen
  480 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the government made reasonable efforts to produce a key informant and did not cause his unavailability.
• van Blaricom v. Forscht
  473 F.2d 1323· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-21 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the procedure used to revoke the appellant's parole did not conform to applicable federal statutory, administrative, and constitutional requirements, specifically those established in Goldberg v. Kelly.
• United States v. Star
  470 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1972-12-29 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the government's improper use of the grand jury for discovery did not warrant reversal due to lack of prejudice, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witn
• United States v. Ellis
  468 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that restricting cross-examination to reveal an undercover agent's identity was not error when the prosecution showed substantial reasons for withholding the information and the testimony's significance was marginal.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Dinsio
  468 F.2d 1392· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-15 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confront Evidence
• United States v. Jordan
  466 F.2d 99· 4th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for a continuance to investigate witnesses and for disclosure of government witnesses' names, nor in denying a motion to suppress the victim's identification.
• United States v. Harless
  464 F.2d 953· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of prior testimony was permissible, the judge's demeanor observation was not required, the denial of a transcript was within discretion, and the Fourth Amendment was not violated.
• Horse v. State OF S.D.
  456 F.2d 1262· 8th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the search of the automobile was valid based on probable cause, and the introduction of a codefendant's statement did not violate Bruton because the codefendant testified and was available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Downing
  454 F.2d 373· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's Selective Service file, including a letter reporting his failure to submit to induction, was admissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1733 and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• James v. State
  254 So. 2d 838· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-12-02 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  Roosevelt James was convicted of first-degree murder based partly on testimony from a witness who died before trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the admission of a transcript of the witness's preliminary hearing testimony, holding that preliminary hearing testim
• United States v. Jefferson D. Ross
  439 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-29 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for assault with intent to commit murder were supported by substantial evidence and that venue was proper. The court also found no denial of due process or speedy trial rights.
• Ervin Simmons v. United States
  440 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-29 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's right to confrontation is not violated when a co-defendant's prior statement is admitted after the co-defendant has pled guilty and is available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Fiore
  434 F.2d 966· 1st Cir.· 1970-12-04 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the federal anti-loan sharking statute (18 U.S.C. § 894) is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Bankruptcy Clause. The defendant's challenges to the statute's constitutionality and his conviction were rejected.
• Denny Lee Gafford v. Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kan., & State of Alaska
  434 F.2d 318· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-16 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether jury misconduct occurred, as a juror's affidavit alleging consideration of outside evidence raises factual questions requiring resolution.
• United States v. Ybarra
  430 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions related to speedy trial, admissibility of co-defendant statements, sufficiency of evidence, Grand Jury transcripts, statute constitutionality, and informant identity disclosure.
• Daboul v. Craven
  429 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the arrest lawful and the admission of prior testimony admissible on most counts, while remanding one count for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Dillard Elean Henderson v. United States
  419 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of constitutional violations during his trial were without merit and did not warrant vacating his sentence.
• United States v. Braxton
  417 F.2d 878· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-06 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting demonstrative evidence, qualifying an expert witness, or summarizing the evidence for the jury.
• Donathan Garvin Kemp v. United States
  415 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-15 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Selective Service file was admissible, the evidence was sufficient, and the appellant's constitutional and discrimination claims were without merit.
• Wallace v. United States
  412 F.2d 1097· D.C. Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that recorded conversations obtained through an informer were lawfully obtained and admissible, and that other alleged trial errors did not deny the appellants a fair trial.
• United States v. Allen
  409 F.2d 611· 10th Cir.· 1969-04-15 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that transcripts of preliminary hearing testimony are admissible at trial if the defendant had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, even if the witnesses later invoke the Fifth Amendment and are physically present.
• United States ex rel. Preston Smith v. Hon. Harold W. Follette
  405 F.2d 1199· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-13 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that federal habeas corpus petitions should be dismissed without prejudice to allow state courts an opportunity to adjudicate the confrontation clause claims first.
• Martin v. Beto
  397 F.2d 741· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-18 ·cited 10×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that while the Court of Inquiry procedures raise grave constitutional questions regarding due process and publicity, the appellant received a fair trial, and the grand jury issue is settled by precedent regarding state ind
• Smith Thomas Walker v. Beto
  387 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1967-12-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that most of the petitioner's claims were properly denied, but the claim regarding denial of effective counsel required further proceedings.
• Brown v. Gamage
  377 F.2d 154· D.C. Cir.· 1967-03-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an officer's failure to utilize available procedures to secure the presence of witnesses or take depositions for cross-examination, despite being informed of their ex parte statements, means he was not denied a fair hearing under the statute.