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. Inadi
  790 F.2d 383· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that no showing of coconspirator unavailability is required for admitting their out-of-court statements, and other raised issues were without merit.
• United States v. Laszlo Szabo
  789 F.2d 1484· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting co-conspirator testimony, as direct testimony does not require a trustworthiness hearing, and the admitted co-conspirator statements were not crucial or devastating and had sufficient indicia of reliability.
• United States v. Alexander
  789 F.2d 1046· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of motions for a new trial and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, finding no Brady violations, Jencks Act violations, Rule 16 violations, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Jonas
  786 F.2d 1019· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting redacted statements, or in its handling of a potentially biased juror. The convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Winsor
  785 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-24 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act does not violate the Eighth Amendment's excessive bail prohibition or the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and the district court's detention order was supported by the evidence.
• Loggins v. Frey
  786 F.2d 364· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance and that the defendant waived his right of confrontation by stipulating to the victim's unavailability.
• Dres v. Campoy
  784 F.2d 996· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability and the testimony lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.
• United States v. Dorta
  783 F.2d 1179· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  A defendant cannot simultaneously deny committing the crime and assert the entrapment defense, and the trial court did not err in refusing to allow cross-examination about a witness's maximum potential sentence when that information was already ascertainable.
• Bennie Fulmore v. State
  483 So. 2d 765· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-05 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that allowing hearsay evidence in a photographic lineup and allowing a rebuttal witness without a Richardson hearing constituted reversible error.
• Humphrey v. United States
  766 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The district court abused its discretion by denying the appellant's third motion to vacate sentence as entirely successive, requiring further proceedings.
• Carrasco v. State
  470 So. 2d 858· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-13 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Johnny Carrasco was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and robbery following a shooting and carjacking on Interstate 10. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because Officer Dennis's testimony regarding a non-testifying codefendant's confession viola
• United States v. Carvalho
  742 F.2d 146· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting ex-spouses' affidavits under hearsay exceptions, as the statements were not against penal interest and lacked trustworthiness, and the error was not harmless.
• Hosea Lorenzo Williams v. Melton
  733 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The admission of hearsay statements identifying the driver of a car, lacking adequate indicia of reliability, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless error.
• Colton Wayne Palmer v. State
  448 So. 2d 55· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that testimony regarding verbal consent to a search is not hearsay and can be admitted through the recipient's testimony, even if the consenting party is unavailable.
• Rosetta McKINZY v. Louie L. Wainwright
  719 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation requires allowing cross-examination of a juvenile witness regarding their record if it could show bias, overriding state laws protecting juvenile record confidentiality.
• Lyle v. Koehler
  720 F.2d 426· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-21 ·cited 6×
  The admission of extra-judicial statements by a co-defendant, which incriminated the petitioner and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Russell
  712 F.2d 1256· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that prior inconsistent grand jury testimony of a witness is admissible as substantive evidence, and the admission of prior statements to postal authorities for impeachment purposes, without a limiting instruction, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Pritchett
  699 F.2d 317· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge's interjection confirming a witness's criminal history and the limitation on cross-examination regarding other drug sources constituted reversible error.
• Hanahan v. Luther
  693 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the rational basis standard of review for parole revocation decisions and that any procedural errors were harmless.
• Logan v. Marshall
  680 F.2d 1121· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state trial court's evidentiary ruling excluding evidence of the victim's gonorrhea did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights and was not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Harrison v. State
  403 So. 2d 565· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the revocation of probation for possessing metallic knuckles and committing batteries, but reversed the sentencing for selling methaqualone due to statutory violations. The court clarified that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation applies to wit
• Emilio Valenzuela, Jr. v. Griffin
  654 F.2d 707· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to secure the witness's presence at trial, thus violating the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
• Juneal Dale Pratt v. Parratt
  615 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding denial of confrontation, tainted identifications, and cruel and unusual punishment lacked merit, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Rosales
  606 F.2d 888· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements did not violate the confrontation clause because the circumstances provided sufficient indicia of reliability.
• Tolbert v. Jago
  607 F.2d 753· 6th Cir.· 1979-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the use of grand jury testimony was permissible because the witness's memory loss was potentially coerced by the defendant, or the defense did not attempt to compel testimony.
• Daniels v. State
  374 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-09-19 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Daniels appeals his conviction for possession and sale of phencyclidine, arguing the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by preventing cross-examination of the chief prosecution witness about his juvenile probation status. The court agrees and rev
• State v. Liberace Atkins
  369 So. 2d 389· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-03-28 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Florida appeals the dismissal of drug possession charges against Atkins after the trial court ruled the state could not prove its case because the heroin evidence was consumed during chemical testing. The appellate court reverses, holding that unavoidable destruction of contraban
• Gov't OF The Canal Zone v. Ruben Antonio Yanez P. (Pinto)
  590 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony of absent witnesses violated the Canal Zone Code and Federal Rules of Evidence because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witnesses' unavailability by process or other reasonable means.
• Durr v. Cook
  589 F.2d 891· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the jury foreman conducted an out-of-court experiment that violated the defendant's rights, and the district court failed to inquire into the possibility of prejudice.
• United States v. Axtman
  589 F.2d 196· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of identification testimony and the photo display was not erroneous, even if the photo had suggestive characteristics, because the identification was reliable and the defense acquiesced to the display's admission.
• Adams v. State
  355 So. 2d 1205· Fla.· 1978-03-02 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confront Evidence
  Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Gardner v. Florida decision requiring disclosure of information relied upon in capital sentencing, James Adams applied for relief claiming the trial judge improperly considered undisclosed information. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the appl
• Lemire v. McCARTHY
  570 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the state trial court's rulings regarding his testimony and the admissibility of evidence concerning the prosecutrix's sexual history. The court also found no due process violation regarding suppresse
• Mathews v. State
  353 So. 2d 1274· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-01-20 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Appellant Mathews was convicted of aggravated assault (count 1) and battery (count 2) along with codefendant Baker for beating two white victims in a jail drunk tank. The court reversed the aggravated assault conviction, holding that the trial court violated Bruton rights by admi
• Artemio Crespo v. State
  350 So. 2d 507· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-09-20 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Artemio Crespo appeals his conviction for attempted sale or delivery of cocaine, raising three constitutional and evidentiary challenges. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no error in precluding disclosure of a confidential informant's address,
• United States v. Martinez
  555 F.2d 1248· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-13 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy and the appellants' participation, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying a continuance.
• United States v. Etta Mae Hill
  548 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The procedural safeguards of Rule 11 do not apply to probation revocation proceedings under these circumstances.
• United States v. Nixon
  545 F.2d 1190· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-03 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of constitutional rights, including the right to confront witnesses, is valid when made in writing with counsel, even when the case is submitted on stipulated facts.
• United States v. Hendrickson
  542 F.2d 21· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's redacted statement, even if inferentially identifying the appellant, did not violate Bruton principles when other independent evidence identified the appellant.
• Poindexter v. Wolff
  540 F.2d 390· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-10 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. Other claims were properly rejected by the district court.
• United States v. Larry
  536 F.2d 1149· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-25 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in declaring a mistrial due to jury deadlock, and that the witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was permissible as there was no knowing waiver.
• United States v. Sanchez
  532 F.2d 155· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to sever Ruiz's trial or provide a limiting instruction after Sanchez admitted to conspiracy prejudiced Ruiz's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• Freeman v. Slayton
  550 F.2d 909· 4th Cir.· 1976-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence, unobjected to on hearsay grounds, to support the conviction for unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun.
• Hassberger v. State
  321 So. 2d 577· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-10-10 ·cited 6×
  This case addresses whether a confidential informant who testifies as a prosecution witness can withhold their identity from the defendant. The court holds that when an informant actually appears as a trial witness, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine generally
• Lea Spears v. Cir. Court
  517 F.2d 360· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of certain hearsay evidence, and that her other claims regarding the constitutionality of the abortion statute and due process were without merit.
• United States v. Miranda
  510 F.2d 385· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-13 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
• United States v. Cleveland
  507 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that in net worth tax evasion cases, the entire Special Agent's Report (SAR) must be tendered to the defense under the Jencks Act, as the investigation itself constitutes the subject matter of the agent's testimony.
• United States v. Buchanan
  500 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the appellants' Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation were not denied.
• Bishop P. Parrish v. Seamans
  485 F.2d 571· 4th Cir.· 1973-10-09 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The district court correctly found that mandamus was not the proper remedy for the appellant's claims regarding his military conviction.
• Shaffer v. Field
  484 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-27 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The admission of dying victim's spontaneous statements and the warrantless entry into the petitioner's locker did not violate the Sixth or Fourth Amendments, respectively, and the trial court's jury instructions did not violate due process.
• United States v. Miller
  480 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the airport search was constitutional and the evidence was properly admitted, affirming the conviction.