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

• Moussa Tehrani v. State
  764 So. 2d 895· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-08-11 ·cited 8×
  Moussa Tehrani appeals his convictions for drug possession and sale, raising issues including prosecutorial misconduct, discovery violations, speedy trial concerns, and entrapment. The appellate court affirms his convictions but expresses concern about the trial court's failure t
• Kidwell v. State
  696 So. 2d 399· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-06-11 ·cited 8×
  A newspaper reporter was held in criminal contempt for refusing to testify about a non-confidential jailhouse interview with a murder defendant, claiming a First Amendment journalist's privilege. The court affirmed the contempt conviction, holding that no qualified privilege prot
• Wright v. State
  646 So. 2d 811· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-12-08 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's motion for post-conviction relief was facially sufficient regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring further proceedings.
• Orndorff v. A.L. Lockhart
  998 F.2d 1426· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the harmless error standard from Chapman v. California applies to this habeas case because the state courts did not have an opportunity to review the constitutional error. The court found the error harmless as to Richley and Holmes, but remanded for further co
• Brown v. Powell
  975 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate the Confrontation Clause by limiting cross-examination regarding the potential penalty the accomplice witness avoided, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness bias.
• In re DOE v. Diamond
  964 F.2d 1325· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege but held that the need for evidence concerning the appellant's history of mental illness outweighed his privacy interests in this case.
• Stewart v. Peters
  958 F.2d 1379· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-27 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A guilty plea is voluntary and intelligent if the defendant understands the rights they are waiving and the consequences of the plea, even if the record lacks explicit admissions or detailed explanations of statutory elements.
• United States v. Bennett
  956 F.2d 1476· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on the drug possession and firearm charges.
• United States v. Lacy Stock
  948 F.2d 1299· D.C. Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's prior omission of a statement, the error was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• United States v. Berrio-Londono
  946 F.2d 158· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights are not violated when a witness refuses to answer collateral questions on Fifth Amendment grounds, especially when the refusal itself can be used to impeach the witness's credibility.
• Clark v. Ricketts
  958 F.2d 851· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 8×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated by concealing a witness's identity when necessary for safety, and that the state death penalty statute and sentencing procedures were constitution
• Clark v. Ricketts
  942 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 8×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated by the concealment of a witness's identity and address, and that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims regarding a presentence interview were either frivolous or procedurally barred. The co
• Morrison v. Duckworth
  929 F.2d 1180· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even if the state court erred by admitting a nontestifying codefendant's confession, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the appellant's own incriminating statements.
• United States v. Khalil Muhammad
  928 F.2d 1461· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of the shooting incident and a bullet, or admitting business records for a beeper rental.
• Manocchio v. Moran
  919 F.2d 770· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The introduction of an autopsy report without the personal presence of the medical examiner who prepared it does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the report possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Elton John Myatt v. Hannigan
  910 F.2d 680· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 8×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that Kansas' child hearsay statute, Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-460(dd), is constitutional on its face and its application in this case did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Beachum v. Tansy
  903 F.2d 1321· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of hypnotically influenced testimony, even if potentially unreliable, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights given the safeguards employed and the victim's consistent testimony. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assis
• United States v. Thomas
  896 F.2d 589· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that because the appellant failed to preserve his issues for appeal and the trial court did not commit plain error, the judgment is affirmed.
• Williams v. Chrans
  894 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus petitions, finding no constitutional violations regarding confrontation clause, victim identification, prosecutorial statements, ineffective assistance of counsel, habitual criminal statute application, or speedy trial rights.
• Smith v. State
  554 So. 2d 552· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-11-29 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
• Monachelli v. Warden, SCI Graterford & the Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa. & the Dist. Attorney of Bucks Cnty.
  884 F.2d 749· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's out-of-court statements, even with a limiting instruction, violates the other defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Sahagian v. Murphy
  871 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant cannot claim a Confrontation Clause violation when his own tactical decision to refuse a continuance for a temporarily unavailable witness leads to the witness's prior testimony being admitted.
• United States v. Portac, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants, the charges were properly joined, and no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• LAM v. State OF Iowa & Iowa State Dep't of Corr.
  860 F.2d 873· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a videotaped deposition of a burglary victim, whose unavailability was not properly established, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Richmann
  860 F.2d 837· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a juror's comment to a witness, if made, was not prejudicial and did not warrant a new trial, and that the defendant's statements were admissible.
• United States v. Perlie Donald Workman
  860 F.2d 140· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The admission of a deceased witness's recorded statement, voluntarily given to an FBI agent with his attorney present, is permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) as a statement against interest with sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, and does not violate the S
• United States v. Rivera
  859 F.2d 1204· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the use of deposition testimony from deported alien witnesses did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as exceptional circumstances justified the depositions and the witnesses were unavailable.
• United States v. Graham
  856 F.2d 756· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while there was sufficient evidence for the convictions and no errors in evidentiary rulings or sentencing, the defendant is entitled to a determination on whether an entrapment instruction was warranted for the Travel Act charge, following the Supreme Court's
• Gardner v. State
  530 So. 2d 404· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-08-23 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The trial court erred by excluding defense counsel's testimony and limiting cross-examination regarding a photographic identification procedure.
• Kurina v. Thieret
  853 F.2d 1409· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that most claims were waived due to procedural default without cause or prejudice, and the remaining claims lacked merit.
• Clark v. O'Leary
  852 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to permit cross-examination regarding the alleged bias and motive of witnesses stemming from their gang affiliation violated the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
• Reverend Nathaniel T. Grady v. LeFEVRE
  846 F.2d 862· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-13 ·cited 8×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims, requiring the petitioner to present all claims to the state courts first.
• Dickey Gaines v. Thieret
  846 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a codefendant's statement implicating the defendant, even if not a direct confession, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez
  842 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a co-defendant's redacted confession was harmless error, and the recorded conversation was admissible to provide context for defendant's admissions.
• United States v. Hughes Anderson Bagley
  837 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  A constitutionally infirm felony conviction, later vacated, cannot serve as the predicate for subsequent firearms convictions under Ninth Circuit law preceding the Supreme Court's Lewis decision.
• United States v. Jaramillo-Montoya
  834 F.2d 276· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the address book was properly admitted as a coconspirator's statement and that the sentence was not disproportionate.
• Jeffers v. Ricketts
  832 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The Arizona Supreme Court's construction of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) to find aggravating circumstances was not unconstitutional, and federal courts should apply a deferential standard of review to such findings.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Haywood v. O'Leary
  827 F.2d 52· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the witness's in-court identification was not unduly suggestive and was sufficiently reliable, and that the refusal to allow cross-examination on co-defendants' dispositions did not deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Guadian-Salazar
  824 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of videotaped deposition testimony violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, and reversed the conviction.
• United States v. McCOLLUM
  802 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony, hearsay statements by a codefendant, and a supplemental jury instruction on knowledge were not erroneous, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Stacey v. Solem
  801 F.2d 1048· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the totality of circumstances showed a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, and that counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• Harker v. State OF Md.
  800 F.2d 437· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-16 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the police procedures in administering hypnosis were flawed, the identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable apart from the hypnosis, rendering the error harmless.
• United States v. Barnes
  798 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 8×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by unduly limiting his cross-examination of a government agent regarding prior inconsistent statements about tape recordings, and this violation was not harmless error.
• United States v. Rasmussen
  790 F.2d 55· 8th Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding extrajudicial statements offered as statements against penal interest due to a lack of corroborating circumstances and clear indicia of reliability.
• Clarissa Marsh v. Richardson
  781 F.2d 1201· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement, even if redacted, violated the Confrontation Clause because it was powerfully incriminating and vital to the prosecution's case against the defendant, creating a substantial risk the jury considered it.
• United States ex rel. William J. Miller v. Kenneth McGINNIS & Attorney Gen. of the State of Ill.
  774 F.2d 819· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-04 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court's failure to inform the defendant of the mandatory supervised release term violated his due process rights, but also found that the totality of errors, including failure to inform of other rights and the defendant's age and confusion, rendered
• United States v. Matlock
  773 F.2d 227· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a coconspirator's statement was admissible and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting drug distribution.
• United States v. Sihadej Chindawongse
  771 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that tape-recorded co-conspirator statements admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) do not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Daniel Emilio (Lucero) Jones
  766 F.2d 412· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of a government witness regarding bias stemming from a rebuffed homosexual advance, and that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Handley
  763 F.2d 1401· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in suppressing depositions obtained in a civil suit, as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause did not bar their use in a subsequent criminal trial under these circumstance