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. Hale
  978 F.2d 1016· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-20 ·cited 7×
• Adams v. R.S. Peterson
  968 F.2d 835· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the majority's distinction between de jure and de facto guilty pleas, focusing on labels rather than substance, is flawed and undermines constitutional protections.
• Walsh v. State
  596 So. 2d 756· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant's cross-examination opened the door to the admission of his codefendant's full confession, and that the trial court erred by not reviewing a completed scoresheet before sentencing.
• United States v. Hartmann
  958 F.2d 774· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no merit in the defendants' challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, or prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Cheatham
  899 F.2d 747· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination, instructing the jury on good faith, or denying motions for mistrial due to allegedly untimely Brady disclosures, and affirmed the convictions.
• Miller v. State
  545 So. 2d 343· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-05-19 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to sever because the co-defendant's statement was inadmissible hearsay and violated the defendant's confrontation rights.
• United States v. The LaROUCHE Campaign
  841 F.2d 1176· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying NBC's motion to quash the subpoena and ordering in camera review of the outtakes, as the defendants made a sufficient showing under Rule 17(c) and their trial interests outweighed NBC's First Amendment
• State v. Leroney Hills
  467 So. 2d 845· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-05-01 ·cited 7×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The State appeals the trial court's order excluding blood test evidence in a first-degree murder case. The court reversed, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the state's failure to freeze blood samples or from the four-year delay in charging hi
• Hall v. Wainwright
  565 F. Supp. 1222· M.D. Fla.· 1983-05-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that certain claims were procedurally defaulted and precluded from federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. Other claims were either exhausted or could be considered on their merits.
• Scurr v. Moore
  647 F.2d 854· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-08 ·cited 7×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  A defendant can forfeit their Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial through contumacious conduct, and the trial court has discretion to remove a disruptive defendant.
• United States v. Jones
  557 F.2d 1237· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's identification, the error was not prejudicial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Gordon v. State
  312 So. 2d 809· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-05-20 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by restricting the defendant's cross-examination of state witnesses, as the rulings were discretionary and did not deny constitutional rights.
• United States v. Carrion
  488 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1973-11-29 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to appoint a separate interpreter for the defendant, given the circumstances presented.
• United States ex rel. William Allen v. State OF Ill.
  413 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court did not err in its conduct and the district court properly dismissed the habeas petition.
• Knight v. State
  97 So. 2d 115· Fla.· 1957-09-25 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  Albert Knight was convicted of incest based solely on uncorroborated testimony from his minor daughter. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that testimony from a psychiatrist and psychologist regarding 'truth serum' tests (sodium amytal) and p
• State of Fla. ex rel. The Fla. BAR v. Grant
  85 So. 2d 232· Fla.· 1956-02-10 ·cited 7×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Florida Bar's disciplinary complaint against attorney W. Cecil Grant for alleged professional misconduct involving fraudulent divorce proceedings, rejecting his challenges to the complaint's sufficiency and the Bar's authority to initiate the
• A. S. v. State
  47 Fla. L. Weekly D681· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-04-27 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The appellate court reversed an order withholding delinquency adjudication because the juvenile's adjudicatory hearing was held via Zoom without a specific finding of necessity. This violated the juvenile's constitutional right to confrontation.
• Phillips v. State
  316 So. 3d 779· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-04-23 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a criminal conviction. It held that the admission of a child protection interview video violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, constituting a fundamental error for one count, but not for others du
• Hopkins v. State
  223 So. 3d 285· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-07-12 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Demetrius Hopkins was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm but appeals arguing the trial court abused its discretion during jury selection by imposing an unreasonable three-hour time limit on voir dire and denying cause challenges for two jurors who expressed doubt abo
• Sims v. State
  135 So. 3d 1098· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-08-21 ·cited 6×
  James Sims was convicted of manslaughter in the 2011 shooting death of Roy Radabaugh that occurred in 1981. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial because Sims was unconstitutionally excluded from an in-chambers conference where
• Overholt v. State
  110 So. 3d 530· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-04-03 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Overholt was convicted of battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child after the victim testified from behind a white screen rather than via closed-circuit television as permitted by statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's shielding method
• Oliver v. State
  125 So. 3d 244· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-02-27 ·cited 6×
  Robert Oliver appeals his consecutive life sentences for lewd and lascivious molestation and capital sexual battery of a child, challenging the trial court's placement of a screen in the courtroom to shield the child victim from viewing the defendant during testimony. The court r
• Eusebio Hernandez v. State
  979 So. 2d 1013· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-03-05 ·cited 6×
  Eusebio Hernandez appeals his conviction for the murder of his former spouse and attempted murder, challenging the admission of a redacted tape-recorded phone conversation containing his own statements and arguing the law of the case doctrine barred its admission. The court affir
• Martino v. State
  964 So. 2d 906· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-10-03 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a key state witness to exclude inquiry into a prior plea agreement from nine years earlier when there is no showing of sufficient similarity between the prior and current cases to establish a pattern or
• Antoine Williams v. State
  947 So. 2d 694· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-02-07 ·cited 6×
  In this rehearing motion case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal vacated Antoine Williams's conviction for aggravated fleeing and eluding, attempted burglary, and leaving the scene of accidents, finding that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause righ
• Cameron v. State
  943 So. 2d 938· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-12-06 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the summary denial of Cameron's Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his habitual offender sentence based on the use of hearsay evidence. The court held that documents from the Parole Commission were admissible under the public
• Sylvis v. State
  916 So. 2d 915· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-11-18 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  William Sylvis appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the Florida Parole Commission's revocation of his parole for violating a no-contact condition. The appellate court treated the appeal as a petition for certiorari and denied relief, finding the circuit c
• Laflipe v. State
  888 So. 2d 104· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-11-24 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Johnnie Laflipe was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. On appeal, he challenged the admissibility of an excited utterance, gang-related evidence, and the denial of post-verdict juror interviews, but the Florida appellate court affirmed his convict
• Staley v. State
  851 So. 2d 805· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-07-30 ·cited 6×
  Bobby Staley challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court failed to follow statutory and constitutional due process requirements. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the probation revocation order, holding that a probationer cannot pro
• Hurst v. State
  842 So. 2d 1041· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-04-23 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Alfred Hurst's conviction for possession with intent to sell cocaine, finding that the trial court reversibly erred in admitting hearsay testimony about an informant's tip that implicated the defendant in the charged crime. The court h
• Barone v. State
  841 So. 2d 653· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the co-defendant's hearsay statement was inadmissible under the 'opening the door' or 'rule of completeness' doctrines because the defense's limited cross-examination on a collateral issue did not justify admitting the entire statement.
• Hughes v. State
  819 So. 2d 815· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-04-04 ·cited 6×
  Thomas Hughes was convicted of sexual battery in a position of familial authority and lewd and lascivious acts upon a child. On appeal, he challenged the admission of voice stress test results, the use of a partition between him and the minor victim, and the sufficiency of eviden
• Abreu v. State
  804 So. 2d 442· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Abreu's conviction because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause right by admitting prior trial testimony from a key witness without establishing the witness's unavailability. The court held that Florida's a
• R.U. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families
  782 So. 2d 1024· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the motion for rehearing and affirmed its prior decision, finding no conflict with cited cases and clarifying the statutory basis for its ruling.
• Lima v. State
  732 So. 2d 1173· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-04-21 ·cited 6×
  Lima appeals his probation revocation for domestic battery, challenging the validity of the oath administered to the out-of-state victim via satellite testimony and arguing that her testimony violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The court affirmed, holding that the
• Martin v. State
  710 So. 2d 58· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-03-18 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a juvenile adjudication for trespass cannot be used to impeach a witness under section 90.610, Florida Statutes, as the statute explicitly excludes juvenile adjudications.
• Chavez v. State
  698 So. 2d 284· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-07-02 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  A trial court violates a defendant's due process rights under Coney v. State when it allows jury selection to proceed without determining whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to be physically present at a sidebar conference during the e
• State v. Mauricio P. Diaz and Cesar Ubillus
  678 So. 2d 1341· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-07-31 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida appeals the trial court's dismissal of drug trafficking charges against Diaz and Ubillus after the state refused to disclose the identity of a confidential tipster for in camera inquiry. The court affirms dismissal as to Diaz, whose viable defense of mere presence and spa
• State v. Grego
  648 So. 2d 743· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The State appeals a pretrial order excluding hearsay statements from two child victims in a capital sexual battery case. The appellate court reverses, finding the trial judge clearly abused her discretion in determining the statements unreliable under Florida Statutes section 90.
• Sigmon v. State
  622 So. 2d 57· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-07-19 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Anthony Sigmon appeals his sexual battery conviction, challenging the admission of the child victim's videotaped testimony given outside his presence. The court affirms the conviction but certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the trial court's failure to
• United States v. Dandy
  998 F.2d 1344· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed convictions for most counts, vacated one, and remanded, finding no reversible error in the judge's recusal decision, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial conduct, or the judge's questioning.
• United States v. Perez
  989 F.2d 1574· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a per se reversal rule for admitting coconspirator hearsay without required findings is modified; instead, appellate courts should assess harmless error and may remand for findings if necessary. The hearsay error in this case was harmless.
• United States v. Boykin
  986 F.2d 270· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the firearm-related charges and that the defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated by the delayed disclosure of witness perjury, as the witness was recalled and cross-examined.
• United States v. Marshall
  985 F.2d 901· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-03 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of evidence, indictment usage, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, variance between indictment and proof, jury instructions, or the handling of agent's notes.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  979 F.2d 138· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, enhancing the sentence for a prior aggravated felony, or admitting hearsay evidence.
• United States v. Olson
  978 F.2d 1472· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's address, nor in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Helton
  975 F.2d 430· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-21 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court did not err in determining restitution amounts, considering depositions at sentencing, or refusing to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Barksdale-Contreras
  972 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and various evidentiary and instructional challenges lacked merit.
• Roberts v. Singletary
  794 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual history was not a constitutional violation because the defense theory was not presented at trial and the defendant denied making the statement at issue. The court also found no ineffective assistanc
• United States v. Benson
  961 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the admission of certain reports constituted error, it was harmless. However, the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice was based on insufficient findings and must be reconsidered.