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. Filemon Bernal-Obeso
  989 F.2d 331· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 5×
  The court vacated the conviction and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of disputed evidence regarding the informant's credibility.
• United States v. DeVILLIO
  983 F.2d 1185· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in denying the motion for severance, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements did not violate Bruton.
• Seaman v. State
  608 So. 2d 71· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-10-20 ·cited 5×
  Norman Seaman appeals his convictions for two counts of capital sexual battery, challenging the admission of a five-year-old child victim's hearsay statements and the denial of his request for closed-circuit television testimony. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, find
• Bradford v. Whitley
  953 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, holding that the use of a confession for impeachment purposes after the defendant invoked his right to counsel is permissible, and other claims of error were without merit.
• Gore v. Dugger
  763 F. Supp. 1110· M.D. Fla.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred by precluding mitigating evidence regarding Petitioner's drug and alcohol abuse and cousin's dominance, violating the Eighth Amendment, and granted a new sentencing hearing on that claim.
• Sargent v. Armontrout
  841 F.2d 220· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to habeas corpus relief because any potential errors were either harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the claims.
• Montes v. State
  516 So. 2d 1047· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-15 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
• Bright v. Shimoda
  819 F.2d 227· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial judge committed constitutional error by precluding inquiry into the witness's knowledge of the victim's specific violent conduct during cross-examination.
• Renzi v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  794 F.2d 155· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prosecution's misleading conduct in failing to produce a key informant, despite promises, deprived the defendant of due process, entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.
• United States v. Ciro
  753 F.2d 248· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the exclusion of a witness's juvenile adjudication did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or constitute an abuse of discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 609(d).
• Kreck v. Spalding
  721 F.2d 1229· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the information was constitutionally defective for failing to adequately apprise the defendant of the charges, and that procedural default did not bar federal habeas review.
• United States v. Cifarelli
  589 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on probable cause and adequate showing of other investigative procedures, and that the admission of a codefendant's statement, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• State v. Sigerson
  282 So. 2d 649· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-09-12 ·cited 5×
  The State appealed a trial court's order granting a defendant's motion to suppress marijuana evidence discovered during an airport security search. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause for the search and tha
• Sult v. Weber
  210 So. 2d 739· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-05-27 ·cited 5×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court order that would have remanded a juvenile's commitment to the Florida School for Boys based on retroactive application of In re Gault. The court held that Gault's procedural requirements do not apply retroactively to juv
• Henry v. State
  94 Fla. 783· Fla.· 1927-10-27 ·cited 5×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for extortion, holding that the defendant's voluntary and momentary absence from the courtroom when the jury initially returned its verdict did not invalidate the judgment. The court also found that the trial court's subsequent proc
• Johnson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  132 F.4th 1309· 11th Cir.· 2025-03-25 ·cited 4×
  Admission of a medical report without the author's testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant cannot prove actual prejudice from the error.
• Sievers v. State
  355 So. 3d 871· Fla.· 2022-11-17 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Mark D. Sievers was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the 2015 hammer killing of his wife, Dr. Teresa Sievers, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, rejecting numerous challenges to both th
• United States v. Darrius Marcel Mastin
  972 F.3d 1230· 11th Cir.· 2020-08-26 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that officers had reasonable belief to enter a hotel room to execute arrest warrants and that detaining a bystander was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• Geovani Johnson v. State
  45 Fla. L. Weekly S161· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-15 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  A party opposing a peremptory strike must make a specific objection to the proponent's proffered race-neutral reason for the strike, if contested, to preserve any claim of error regarding the trial court's acceptance of that reason.
• Jerone Hunter v. State
  175 So. 3d 699· Fla.· 2015-04-30 ·cited 4×
  Jerone Hunter appeals the denial of his Rule 3.851 motion for postconviction relief in a capital murder case involving the brutal murders of six victims in Deltona, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial of Hunter's ineffective assistance of counsel c
• Lines v. State
  143 So. 3d 1018· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-07-23 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever the trials of co-defendants.
• State v. Stevie Johnson
  128 So. 3d 237· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-12-11 ·cited 4×
  Florida appealed a trial court order excluding a video recording of a drug transaction under Crawford v. Washington. The appellate court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and reversed, holding that the video depicted the criminal act itself rather than testimonial state
• Brock D. Mardis v. State
  122 So. 3d 950· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-10-09 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  Mardis appeals his sexual battery conviction, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence that the victim had financial motivations to fabricate the charges. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that evidence of the victim's a
• Helms v. State
  38 So. 3d 182· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-05-20 ·cited 4×
  James Helms was convicted of deriving support from prostitution proceeds and transporting a person for prostitution purposes. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew prostitution would occur and that an audiotape violated his Sixth Amendment confrontat
• Bleiweiss v. State
  24 So. 3d 1215· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-12-24 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  A trial court violates fundamental due process by denying defense counsel the opportunity to present oral argument before determining whether proof is evident and presumption great at an Arthur pretrial detention hearing, particularly in a complex case involving serious charges.
• Williams v. State
  933 So. 2d 1283· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-07-28 ·cited 4×
  Dwayne Williams appealed his jury conviction for cocaine trafficking, cannabis possession, and DUI. The court affirmed the drug convictions but reversed the DUI conviction because the breath test affidavit was introduced by someone other than the technician who performed the test
• Corona v. State
  929 So. 2d 588· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-04-28 ·cited 4×
  Sergio Corona was convicted of capital sexual battery against his 11-year-old daughter based on hearsay statements made by the victim to police, which were admitted under the reliability standard of Ohio v. Roberts. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washi
• State v. Alessandro Marci Possati
  866 So. 2d 737· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-02-11 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sought certiorari review of a circuit court's decision that reinstated a driver's license after the driver refused a breathalyzer test. The appellate court vacated its earlier denial and granted the DHSMV's petition, hol
• Williams v. State
  865 So. 2d 17· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-12-24 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that hearsay statements made by a child victim for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are admissible under section 90.803(4), Florida Statutes, even when made to a non-physician, as long as they are reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
• Baugh v. State
  862 So. 2d 756· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-10-31 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Raymond Baugh was convicted of capital sexual battery against a seven-year-old victim based primarily on the child's out-of-court hearsay statements, which the child completely recanted at trial. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that while prior inconsistent c
• Rainner v. State
  801 So. 2d 997· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-12-19 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in sustaining the state's objection based on surveillance location privilege without proper procedure, thus denying the defendant's right to cross-examination.
• McGriff
  Del.· 2001-09-07 ·cited 4×
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, holding that the admission of hearsay testimony from child victim statements under the "tender years" statute did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights. The court found that the statute's requirements f
• Khalif Jones v. State
  739 So. 2d 1220· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-08-05 ·cited 4×
  The Florida appellate court reversed Khalif Jones's convictions for armed robbery, carjacking, and kidnapping because the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after prosecution testimony conveyed the clear inference that a non-testifying codefendant had implicated
• Williams v. State
  734 So. 2d 1149· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-05-28 ·cited 4×
  Williams appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting his arguments that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the seller and that the laboratory cocaine
• J.D. v. State
  705 So. 2d 44· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-12-15 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  In this juvenile delinquency case, the appellate court reversed a restitution order because the juvenile was not present at the restitution hearing and there was no evidence he waived his right to be present, following the precedent established in J.B. v. State.
• M.W. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  651 So. 2d 754· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-03-06 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The appellate court reversed a dependency order against a father due to the improper admission of hearsay testimony from his children. While the court found sufficient evidence of abuse, the trial court failed to make required findings for admitting the hearsay, and this error wa
• Scritchfield v. State
  648 So. 2d 1246· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-01-20 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  This case reviews a driver's license suspension for refusing a breathalyzer test. The appellate court denied the driver's petition for certiorari, finding that his arguments regarding the arresting officer's absence and the voluntariness of his refusal were either waived or witho
• Brown v. State
  648 So. 2d 268· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-01-04 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Ruben Brown appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to sever his trial from his codefendant's when the codefendant's hearsay statement was admitted. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the statement admissibl
• Green v. State
  667 So. 2d 789· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-01-04 ·cited 4×
  Willie Green was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault and sexual battery of a 14-year-old mentally retarded child based primarily on the child's prior inconsistent statements, which she recanted at trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that a prior inconsistent stateme
• J.L.W. v. State
  642 So. 2d 1198· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-09-30 ·cited 4×
  J.L.W., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for attempted armed robbery based on evidence that he was present in a vehicle from which a robbery was committed. The appellate court reversed, holding that mere presence in the car without evidence of aiding, abetting, or criminal
• Anderson v. State
  642 So. 2d 109· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-09-08 ·cited 4×
  Steven Anderson was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child based solely on hearsay statements from an incompetent seven-year-old victim. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but certified to the Florida Supreme Court a question of great public importance regar
• Davis v. Singletary
  853 F. Supp. 1492· M.D. Fla.· 1994-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pretrial publicity did not rise to the level of presumed prejudice and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for individual and sequestered voir dire.
• United States v. Garcia
  994 F.2d 1499· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, but the drug quantity calculation for sentencing was clearly erroneous. The court also found no plain error regarding the admission of coconspirator statements, lay opinion testimony, or the cro
• United States v. Romeo Trinidad Flores, Jr.
  985 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a codefendant's grand jury testimony, which implicated the defendant, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because the testimony lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and the district court improperly considered corro
• Townsend v. State
  613 So. 2d 534· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-01-29 ·cited 4×
  Jack Timothy Townsend appeals his sexual battery conviction, arguing that hearsay statements from a two-year-old alleged victim should not have been admitted at trial. The appellate court reverses and remands, holding that incompetency to testify does not satisfy the statutory re
• United States v. Young
  981 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, specifically the requirement for a good cause showing for the nondisclosure of confidential informant identities, constituted plain error requiring remand for resentencing.
• Goldsmith v. S.R. Witkowski
  981 F.2d 697· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the petitioner's drug convictions, and the jury's consideration of stricken testimony did not violate his rights.
• United States v. Kelly
  973 F.2d 1145· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance, refusing to produce certain evidence, or admitting hearsay statements of a co-conspirator, and that the Bank Bribery Act was not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
• United States v. Santiago
  977 F.2d 517· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an intended loss for sentencing enhancement purposes cannot exceed the economically realistic probable or actual loss. It also held that a defendant is not entitled to a reduction for an incomplete attempt if they completed all acts they believed necessary for
• Aguilar-Ayala v. Cecilio Ruiz
  973 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees, holding that the government's position in resisting the litigation was substantially justified due to the unresolved legal issues surrounding the detention of alien material witnesses.