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

• Griffin v. Cal. Adult Auth.
  464 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-24 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition was premature because the prisoner's claims regarding denial of counsel and confrontation rights at parole revocation required further factual development.
• United States v. Ready
  460 F.2d 1238· 4th Cir.· 1972-05-15 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  A defendant's guilty plea is valid even if the court does not explicitly inform them of the right to confront accusers, as this right is implicitly waived by pleading guilty.
• United States v. Wing
  459 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-17 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's out-of-court statement was permissible when the co-defendant testified and was subject to cross-examination, and that a prosecutor's comment during closing argument was not an improper reference to the defendant's silence.
• United States ex rel. Curtis Abbott v. Twomey
  460 F.2d 400· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-27 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in suppressing an informer's true identity and address because the informer was not the principal witness against the accused, and the defendant was not denied effective cross-examination.
• Howard v. Sigler
  454 F.2d 115· 8th Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admissibility of prior testimony based on a witness's unavailability due to illness is a preliminary factual determination governed by due process, not the Confrontation Clause, and can be made using a credible affidavit.
• United States v. Brown
  452 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-20 ·cited 8×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that while admitting confessions that implicated co-defendants in violation of Bruton v. United States was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Mendoza
  441 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-28 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid because Miranda warnings were adequate, any Bruton violation was harmless error, and probable cause for arrest existed.
• Hollbrook v. United States
  441 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-13 ·cited 8×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that jury instruction and hearsay evidence claims are not cognizable in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the prosecutor's remarks did not violate the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment confrontation claim was also denied.
• Arbuckle v. Turner
  440 F.2d 586· 10th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's guilty plea was valid, as it was entered voluntarily and intelligently, and the trial court's findings were supported by the record.
• United States v. Arceneaux
  437 F.2d 924· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissent argues that the majority's expansion of the entrapment defense is improper and that the admission of inadmissible hearsay statements against a codefendant, even with a limiting instruction, requires reversal under Bruton v. United States.
• Gagnon v. State
  243 So. 2d 219· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-01-19 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's numerous grounds for appeal, including issues with counsel, speedy trial, identification, jury selection, lesser included offenses, prosecutorial comment, confrontation rights, and charge reduction, did not constitute reversible error.
• Shepherd v. Nelson
  432 F.2d 1045· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the dismissal of the prisoner's habeas corpus petition was proper because the claims raised were either conclusory, unsupported by facts, or did not rise to the level of a constitutional due process violation.
• United States v. Bujese
  434 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant had a full opportunity to confront the confessing co-defendant, rendering the Bruton principle inapplicable.
• United States v. Williams
  431 F.2d 1168· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-16 ·cited 8×
• Martinez v. Patterson
  429 F.2d 844· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 8×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that constitutional due process does not require appointed counsel, confrontation of witnesses, or compulsory process at state parole revocation hearings, and that the equal protection clause does not mandate counsel for preparing written statements in such proceed
• United States v. Brown
  428 F.2d 1191· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's sentence reduction motion was properly denied as the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated.
• United States v. Barthelmio Dalli and Thomas Pytel
  424 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-30 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant can waive their right to be present at a suppression hearing by failing to take reasonable steps to obtain necessary re-entry permits. The court also found that the arrests were based on sufficient probable cause from observed activities, not solel
• United States v. Elliott
  418 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by a co-defendant's testimony, nor was the joinder of charges an abuse of discretion.
• Hawkins v. United States
  417 F.2d 1271· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-22 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that no reversible error occurred during the trial regarding witness testimony or prosecutorial remarks.
• United States ex rel. Nelson M. Garcia v. Follette
  417 F.2d 709· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-14 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the pretrial identification procedures did not violate due process and that other objections raised were without merit.
• Migliore v. United States
  409 F.2d 786· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that statements made by one co-defendant during the commission of the crime, implicating the other, are admissible even without the implicated co-defendant's presence, and that failure to object to testimony at trial waives the right to appeal that testimony.
• Leora J. Bishop v. McKEE
  400 F.2d 87· 10th Cir.· 1968-08-26 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the agency substantially complied with procedural steps in removing the appellant and that the remedy of removal was within the agency's discretion.
• United States v. Mientke
  387 F.2d 1009· 7th Cir.· 1967-12-26 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Selective Service Board's classification proceedings are administrative and do not require the same constitutional safeguards as criminal proceedings, and that there was a basis in fact for the registrant's classification.
• States Marine Lines, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  376 F.2d 230· D.C. Cir.· 1967-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while complainant secrecy is permissible, the self-policing system's failure to provide adequate safeguards against the use of secret evidence against an accused member renders it unfair. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
• United States ex rel. Fred DeLUCIA & Salvator Montella v. McMANN
  373 F.2d 759· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-07 ·cited 8×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court vacated the district court's denial of habeas corpus and directed dismissal without prejudice, allowing New York courts to reconsider the claims in light of Parker v. Gladden.
• Rose v. Woolwine
  344 F.2d 993· 4th Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A Special Inquiry Officer has the authority to conduct a hearing allowing an alien to impeach damaging information in their file, as this pertains to the severity and consequences of deportation.
• Clement L. McEACHERN v. Macy
  341 F.2d 895· 4th Cir.· 1965-02-19 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of creditors' letters was not error where the appellant admitted the underlying debts, and the admitted debts provided substantial evidence for the charges.
• Narum v. United States
  287 F.2d 897· Ct. Cl.· 1960-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plaintiff who repeatedly failed to raise a constitutional confrontation issue during military appeals should not be permitted to raise it years later in a civilian court for a money judgment.
• Graham v. Richmond
  272 F.2d 517· D.C. Cir.· 1959-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Commandant could not automatically deny an application for a validated document based solely on the applicant's refusal to answer certain security questions, as the regulations required a full process including a hearing if the Commandant was not satisfied
• United States ex rel. DE Graw v. Toon
  151 F.2d 778· 2d Cir.· 1945-11-07 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confront Evidence
  The court held that the relator's reinduction into the Army was illegal because he was not accorded his right to confront damaging evidence against him and the Local Board failed to properly report facts to the Appeal Board.
• Jackson v. State of Fla. & Kim Jackson v. Ricky D. Dixon
  347 So. 3d 292· Fla.· 2022-06-30 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  Kim Jackson, convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Debra Pearce based on DNA and fingerprint evidence, appealed and petitioned for habeas corpus challenging multiple ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the
• Carter
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2017-01-18 ·cited 7×
  The court denied the defendant's amended motion for postconviction relief, finding that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit. The court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard and found that the defendant failed to demonstrate either deficient perfor
• Fajardo v. State
  193 So. 3d 1019· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-06-08 ·cited 7×
  Pedro Fajardo appeals his conviction for attempted second degree murder. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination of the key state witness about his immigr
• Smith v. State
  151 So. 3d 1177· Fla.· 2014-09-11 ·cited 7×
  Joseph Smith appeals the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion for postconviction relief in a capital murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial, rejecting Smith's various constitutional challenges to Florida's death penalty statute, jury instruction procedures, and exec
• Melendez v. State
  135 So. 3d 456· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-03-21 ·cited 7×
  Hector Melendez appealed his conviction for burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property, challenging the admission of hearsay statements from codefendants and his dual conviction for theft and dealing in stolen property. The Fifth District reversed the burglary convicti
• Lesly Jean-Philippe v. State
  123 So. 3d 1071· Fla.· 2013-06-13 ·cited 7×
  Lesly Jean-Philippe was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife Elkie in August 2009 and aggravated battery against his sister-in-law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, rejecting his arguments regarding the admissibility of text m
• Henry v. State
  123 So. 3d 1167· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-03-13 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  Christopher Henry was convicted of second-degree sexual battery against his cellmate at Palm Beach County Jail, claiming consensual sexual relations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction because the trial court erroneously prohibited cross-examination of th
• Kovaleski v. State
  1 So. 3d 254· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-01-05 ·cited 7×
  Anthony Kovaleski was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts involving a minor. On appeal, he challenged the victim's cross-examination regarding a prior false accusation, the courtroom closure during the victim's testimony, and his consecutive sentences. The court a
• Pestano v. State
  980 So. 2d 1200· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-04-30 ·cited 7×
  Victor Pestaño appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, sexual battery, kidnapping, and robbery carjacking in connection with a 1995 homicide case where the victim was found drowned in a car trunk. The appellate court affirmed all convictions, rejecting challenges to the
• Washington v. State
  973 So. 2d 611· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-01-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting deposition testimony during civil commitment proceedings for a sexually violent predator, as the testimony was reliable and the witness was unavailable.
• Cann v. State
  958 So. 2d 545· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-06-13 ·cited 7×
  Alonzo Cann was convicted of sexual battery and lewd molestation of a seven-year-old child. On appeal, he challenged the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, the admission of Williams rule evidence regarding prior similar acts against the victim's aunt, and
• Veltre v. State
  957 So. 2d 47· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-05-02 ·cited 7×
  Joseph Veltre was convicted of lewd and lascivious exhibition to a child and appealed on grounds that the trial court erred by allowing prejudicial hearsay testimony and denying his motions for mistrial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no abus
• State v. Ratner
  948 So. 2d 700· Fla.· 2007-01-11 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a certified nonfinal county court order. The Court held that district courts of appeal have discretionary jurisdiction over nonfinal orders certified as matters o
• Bartee v. State
  922 So. 2d 1065· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-03-17 ·cited 7×
  Charles Bartee was convicted of burglary, false imprisonment, and battery following an altercation with his ex-girlfriend. The Florida appellate court reversed the burglary conviction because the trial court violated Bartee's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by admitting test
• Contreras v. State
  910 So. 2d 901· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-09-14 ·cited 7×
  Rodolfo Contreras was convicted of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of his daughter based primarily on a videotaped ex parte statement taken by a Child Protection Team (CPT). The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the CPT statement constitute
• Mencos v. State
  909 So. 2d 349· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-07-20 ·cited 7×
  Jose Maria Mencos was convicted by jury of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve, battery on a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. On appeal, Mencos challenged the admission of the child victim's out-of-court statements under the Confrontation Clause,
• United States v. Edwards
  211 F.3d 1355· 11th Cir.· 2000-05-19 ·cited 7×
  Daryl Edwards was convicted of drug conspiracy and distribution and sentenced to life imprisonment. Edwards appealed on two grounds: that his trial violated the Speedy Trial Act by commencing only twenty-nine days after his initial appearance, and that he was denied effective cro
• Lark O'Sean Dupree v. State
  639 So. 2d 125· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-06-29 ·cited 7×
  Dupree was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of a two-year-old child. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, by allowing testimony about out-of-court stat
• United States v. Olgivie O'Brien Williams
  985 F.2d 634· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-12 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Calva
  979 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that sentencing enhancements based on uncharged relevant conduct do not violate constitutional rights and that the Sentencing Commission acted within its statutory authority. Government conduct in continuing drug purchases was not sentencing entrapment.