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. Inocenio Guterrez Perez
  658 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-29 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper due to independent evidence of conspiracy and the defendant's link to it, and that the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause was not violated. However, the special parole term imposed for the conspiracy convi
• United States v. Brady
  579 F.2d 1121· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 88×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of causation and intent, that the consolidation and denial of severance were not prejudicial, that the Bruton rule did not apply, and that the jury selection plan was not
• United States v. Wood
  550 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-23 ·cited 88×
  The court held that a fugitive's appeal is subject to dismissal and that various evidentiary and procedural rulings by the trial court did not constitute reversible error.
• Farina v. State
  801 So. 2d 44· Fla.· 2001-08-16 ·cited 87×·via Right To Confrontation
  Anthony Farina appeals his death sentence for murder committed during an armed robbery at a Taco Bell restaurant in 1992, where his brother Jeffery fired the fatal shot. The Florida Supreme Court affirms Farina's death sentence despite his arguments that he was a minor participan
• del Valle v. State
  80 So. 3d 999· Fla.· 2011-12-15 ·cited 86×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts of appeal regarding the procedures and burden of proof required before a probationer's probation can be revoked for failure to pay restitution or costs. The court held that trial courts must inquire into the prob
• United States v. Jannotti
  729 F.2d 213· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 86×
  The court held that while the appellants' conduct was sufficient to convict them of Hobbs Act conspiracy, the evidence did not prove Schwartz conspired to conduct the affairs of the law firm as required for a RICO conviction.
• United States v. Shell
  633 F.2d 77· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-24 ·cited 86×
• United States v. Armedo-Sarmiento
  545 F.2d 785· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-28 ·cited 86×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find a single conspiracy existed, that speedy trial rights were not violated, and that certain evidence was obtained through an illegal search and seizure requiring reversal for two appellants.
• United States v. Stratton
  779 F.2d 820· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 85×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a criminal conviction by an eleven-person jury is valid under Rule 23(b) when a juror is excused during deliberations, and that various evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Claret Echeverry
  759 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the jury instructions on intoxication were adequate, the Jencks Act violation was harmless, and the admission of out-of-court statements did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Massa
  740 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 85×
  The court affirmed Massa's conviction on all counts and Skinner's conviction on all but three counts of interstate transportation of forged securities, finding no prejudicial variance and that any error in admitting coconspirator hearsay was harmless.
• United States v. Heath
  580 F.2d 1011· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 85×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the majority's conclusion sustaining the convictions was incorrect due to numerous reversible errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, Jencks Act violations, and a prejudicial variance between the indictment's single conspiracy theory and the evidence of mu
• United States v. Cerone
  452 F.2d 274· 7th Cir.· 1971-09-15 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the testimony of an informer, even if he lacked criminal intent, is admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, and that sufficient independent evidence corroborated the informer's testimony to support the convictions.
• United States v. Washington
  782 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 84×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that disqualifying counsel based solely on an appearance of impropriety, without an evidentiary hearing to determine if an actual conflict existed, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. The court also found that certain items seized u
• United States v. Delker
  757 F.2d 1390· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 84×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in ordering pretrial detention, affirming the detention order.
• Houser v. United States
  508 F.2d 509· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-11 ·cited 84×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that challenges to arrest and evidence seizure, denial of confrontation, and testimony of a mentally ill person are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 when the issues were known or could have been raised on direct appeal or were otherwise without merit.
• McDANIEL v. United States
  343 F.2d 785· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 84×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the admission of certain exhibits and the denial of a written jury charge did not constitute reversible error.
• Wydell Jody Evans v. State
  838 So. 2d 1090· Fla.· 2002-11-14 ·cited 83×·via Right To Confrontation
  Wydell Evans was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnaping, and aggravated assault for shooting and killing his brother's 17-year-old girlfriend Angel Johnson two days after his prison release. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Evans' convictions and death sentence, finding th
• United States v. Murray Morris Kessler
  530 F.2d 1246· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-03 ·cited 83×
  A retrial is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause if prosecutorial overreaching caused the mistrial, even if the mistrial was granted at the defendant's request.
• United States v. Reid
  911 F.2d 1456· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 82×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the grand jury was adequately informed, the witness's testimony did not violate due process, and the Sentencing Guidelines were not misapplied.
• United States v. Tarantino
  846 F.2d 1384· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a single chain conspiracy for distributing cocaine and laundering its proceeds, and that the appellants' actions were in furtherance of this overarching objective. The court affirmed convictions except for one sentencin
• United States v. Webster
  649 F.2d 346· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 82×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove a defendant's predisposition in entrapment cases, except in limited circumstances to rebut specific assertions of government misconduct.
• United States v. Wilmer Stanley Snow
  521 F.2d 730· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 82×
  The court held that statements of a co-conspirator, even if hearsay, are admissible if made in furtherance of the conspiracy and if independent evidence establishes the conspiracy and the declarant's and defendant's connection to it, and do not violate the Confrontation Clause if
• Cohen v. Perales
  412 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-01 ·cited 82×·via Right To Confrontation
  Hearsay evidence is admissible in Social Security administrative hearings, but mere uncorroborated hearsay, standing alone, does not constitute substantial evidence to support a decision.
• Franqui v. State
  Fla.· 1997-06-26 ·cited 81×
  Leonardo Franqui was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes in connection with an attempted armed robbery that resulted in the death of Raul Lopez. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, finding that while the trial court erred in admitt
• United States v. Taylor
  716 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 81×
  A defendant cannot be punished for both attempt and conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 for a single course of conduct, even if elements of both are present.
• United States v. Hoyle Lamont Peacock
  654 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Vera Peacock of one arson, and Harvey and Hoyle Peacock of the murder of Ruth Elaine Peacock. The court also reversed the forfeiture order.
• United States v. Cerro
  775 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 80×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's sentence was improperly calculated based on multiple conspiracies, and that the evidence did not sufficiently prove separate conspiracies. The court also found that any error in excluding impeachment evidence was harmless.
• United States v. Boulahanis
  677 F.2d 586· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-06 ·cited 80×
  The court affirmed convictions for Hobbs Act violations but reversed convictions for extortionate collection of credit, remanding for resentencing.
• Cuciak v. State
  410 So. 2d 916· Fla.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 80×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that defendants in probation revocation proceedings are entitled to reasonable discovery under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, and that trial courts must conduct a Richardson inquiry when discovery violations occur. However, failure to con
• United States v. Walton
  552 F.2d 1354· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-14 ·cited 80×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, nor did it commit plain error regarding comments on the defendants' failure to testify or limitations on cross-examination.
• Morrell v. State
  297 So. 2d 579· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-27 ·cited 80×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that while a defendant has a right to cross-examine a witness about potential bias, prior criminal charges that are too remote in time do not provide a basis for such an argument.
• Brooks v. State
  787 So. 2d 765· Fla.· 2001-04-05 ·cited 79×
  Lamar Brooks was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the stabbing deaths of Rachel Carlson and her three-month-old daughter. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court's admission of extensi
• United States v. Birdie Louise Joshua Harris
  501 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-24 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's residence, nor was the trial court's active participation in questioning witnesses erroneous.
• United States v. Theron Clark
  475 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-08 ·cited 79×
  The court held that excluding the defendant and the public from a suppression hearing, except for the limited portion concerning secret profile criteria, was plain error. Additionally, the trial judge's jury instructions were so deficient as to constitute plain error.
• Nixon v. Singletary
  758 So. 2d 618· Fla.· 2000-01-27 ·cited 78×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Joe Elton Nixon, a death row inmate, challenged his conviction for first-degree murder, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by admitting his guilt during opening and closing arguments without his consent. The Florida Supreme Court held that such guilt admis
• United States v. Garrett
  727 F.2d 1003· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 78×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the disqualification of retained counsel was permissible under the Sixth Amendment, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution for continuing criminal enterprise after a conviction for a predicate offense, and the restriction of cross-examination was proper. Howe
• United States v. Ruppel
  666 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 78×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that prosecutorial vindictiveness did not apply to reindictment after a mistrial, the grand jury was not misused, severance was not required, and various evidentiary and jury instruction issues were either properly handled or harmless er
• United States v. Praetorius
  622 F.2d 1054· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-10 ·cited 78×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prosecutor's summation did not refer to facts not in evidence, the limitation on cross-examination was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of evidence was not prejudicial. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Toliver
  541 F.2d 958· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-02 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and proof of multiple conspiracies is not fatal if it does not affect the substantial rights of the accused, and that a defendant's absence from trial due to illness, while a constitutional violati
• United States v. Musgrave
  483 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 78×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings and instructions, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. COX
  449 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1971-10-13 ·cited 78×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2517(5) is constitutional, allowing the use of intercepted communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the original authorization, provided a judge approves their use. The court also found that the admission of intercepted con
• United States v. Dorwin Marine
  413 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 78×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that evidence of similar transactions was admissible to prove intent, the admission of a co-defendant's extrajudicial statement was not plain error, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Dewitt Jackson Maxwell
  579 F.3d 1282· 11th Cir.· 2009-08-19 ·cited 77×
  Dewitt Jackson Maxwell was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering arising from his participation in a fraudulent scheme to obtain construction contracts set aside for socially and
• Penn v. State
  574 So. 2d 1079· Fla.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 77×·via Right To Confrontation
  James Randall Penn was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for brutally beating his mother to death with a hammer while under the influence of crack cocaine. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but vacated his death sentence, finding that the tri
• Muehleman v. State
  503 So. 2d 310· Fla.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 77×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jeffrey Muehleman was convicted of first-degree murder pursuant to a guilty plea and sentenced to death for the brutal killing of a 97-year-old man during a robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence, rejecting Muehleman's challenges to the lawfu
• United States v. Helmel
  769 F.2d 1306· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the admission of the ledger was proper for Stowe, Helmel, and Glick under the coconspirator rule, but reversed Paulsen's conviction due to insufficient independent evidence to support the admission of the ledger against him. The court also found that Stowe and
• United States v. Tracey
  675 F.2d 433· 1st Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 77×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding evidence of a witness's jail incident and municipal court records, and that the denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was proper.
• United States v. Roberto José Maldonado-Rivera
  922 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 76×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions for most defendants, vacating one conviction due to sentencing error, and rejected challenges to the admissibility of electronic surveillance tapes.
• Francis v. Dugger
  908 F.2d 696· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, finding that while the state committed Brady/Giglio violations and a confrontation clause error, these were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and counsel's assistance was not ineffective.