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

• Velarde v. United States
  972 F.2d 826· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-14 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, both trial and appellate, failed to meet the Strickland standard for performance and prejudice.
• United States v. Chrismon
  965 F.2d 1465· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no Sixth Amendment violations regarding co-defendant statements and upholding the denial of the motion to suppress Jackson's statement.
• United States v. Kladouris
  964 F.2d 658· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a deceased witness's grand jury testimony was proper under Rule 804(b)(5) and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that the defendant knowingly waived any conflict of interest with her counsel.
• United States v. Bland
  961 F.2d 123· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or admitting evidence, and that the life sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) was constitutional.
• Dana v. Dep't OF Corr.
  958 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements through adult witnesses did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were either within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
• United States v. Camacho
  955 F.2d 950· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that commencing trial in the defendant's absence, due to a weather delay, constituted an abuse of discretion and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Jeromey Clay Parker
  956 F.2d 169· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government adequately complied with statutory requirements for transferring juveniles to adult court and that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous.
• Adamson v. Lewis
  955 F.2d 614· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues that exceptional circumstances justify recalling the court's mandate to reconsider a prior en banc decision that incorrectly vacated a death sentence.
• Everhart v. State
  592 So. 2d 352· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-14 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Rodney Everhart appealed his first-degree murder conviction, arguing that the state's case relied improperly on hearsay evidence of an out-of-court identification. The appellate court agreed, finding that a police officer's recitation of a non-testifying witness's identification
• United States v. Washington
  952 F.2d 1402· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's redacted statement, using neutral pronouns or general terms, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if it does not create an inevitable association with the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given.
• United States v. Riggi
  951 F.2d 1368· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-12 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Eloy Horacio DeSOTO
  950 F.2d 626· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and that this error was not harmless.
• Wealot v. Armontrout
  948 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the limitation of cross-examination designed to show a witness's motive for fabrication violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• United States v. Alikpo
  944 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that commencing jury selection in the defendant's absence, without a valid waiver or justification, constitutes reversible error because it violates the defendant's fundamental right to be present and can prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.
• United States v. Federico Giovanelli
  945 F.2d 479· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the prosecutor's conduct in playing tapes for the first time during rebuttal summation was improper and unfair, it did not affect the validity of the convictions for other offenses.
• Vincent v. Al Parke
  942 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Reindeau
  947 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that restricting the cross-examination of the government's expert witness regarding whether the explosive device was designed as a weapon impermissibly prevented the defendants from presenting their defense, constituting reversible error.
• United States v. Colston
  936 F.2d 312· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that inconsistencies in a witness's testimony do not automatically render it incredible, and a jury may accept parts of the testimony while rejecting others. The court also held that a guilty plea is valid for sentence enhancement if it is shown to be intelligent a
• United States v. Begay
  937 F.2d 515· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual activity, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Fannin v. State
  581 So. 2d 974· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-21 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Harold Fannin was convicted of cocaine possession based largely on testimony from his co-defendant Gwen Oliver. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court improperly restricted Fannin's cross-examination of Olive
• United States v. Williams
  936 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a codefendant's redacted confession, which does not directly implicate the defendant when viewed in isolation, is admissible even if other evidence links the defendant to the confession.
• United States v. Farkas
  935 F.2d 962· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limited admission of hearsay complaint letters did not violate the Sixth Amendment, there was sufficient evidence to support the credit card fraud convictions, and the restitution order to the bank was permissible as the bank was a victim of the credit car
• United States v. CHU Kong YIN
  935 F.2d 990· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the double jeopardy clause does not bar retrial on certain counts where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could support a rational trier of fact's finding of guilt, even if some evidence is later deemed inadmissible.
• Burney v. State
  579 So. 2d 746· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-04-10 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony that implicated the defendant, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. YIP
  930 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government need not prove the defendant knew his actions would directly deprive the government of lawful duties under 18 U.S.C. § 542.
• United States v. Williams
  927 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed convictions for narcotics violations, finding no prejudicial error in jury selection, admission of plea allocutions, or Brady claims.
• United States v. Bowman
  926 F.2d 380· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a sentencing judge may rely on uncorroborated hearsay testimony, provided the defendant has notice and an opportunity to rebut it, and that such reliance does not violate Sixth Amendment notice requirements.
• Dawson Cole v. Tansy
  926 F.2d 955· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of an unavailable witness's statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause, the restriction on closing argument was not an abuse of discretion, and the evidence was sufficient for attempted armed robbery.
• White v. White
  925 F.2d 287· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court held that a parolee's admission of some parole violations does not constitute a waiver of the right to confront adverse witnesses regarding other contested violations, and that barring such confrontation at an institutional revocation hearing violates due process.
• Hughes Anderson Bagley, Jr. v. CMC Real Est. Corp.
  923 F.2d 758· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that Bagley's civil rights claims accrued when he first learned of the injury, not upon the completion of his habeas corpus proceedings, and that his § 1985(2) claim failed for lack of class-based animus.
• Story v. Collins
  920 F.2d 1247· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the good conduct time claim for lack of jurisdiction, but the claim fails on the merits because the petitioner was not entitled to good conduct time under the applicable law. The court affirmed the dismissal of other clai
• United States v. Zein Hassan ISA
  923 F.2d 1300· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that electronic surveillance conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was lawful, and the evidence obtained was admissible in criminal proceedings.
• The United States v. Martin
  920 F.2d 393· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in restricting cross-examination, allowing dual transcripts, refusing to sequester the case agent, permitting testimony about a taped conversation, or in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant.
• United States v. Andrews
  919 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of criminal profile evidence was not plain error and hearsay testimony was harmless error, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Lopez-Cervantes
  918 F.2d 111· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the videotape depositions of material witnesses were improperly taken without statutory authority or adherence to procedural rules, and without a showing of good faith effort to secure their trial attendance.
• Apolinario Vigil v. Tansy
  917 F.2d 1277· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of a videotaped deposition of a child victim did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• Harper v. Kelly
  916 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination into the victim's emotional state during the robbery violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, and this error was not harmless.
• St. Luke Gregory, Jr. v. State OF N.C.
  900 F.2d 705· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would hold that any error in admitting a hearsay statement was harmless, and would reverse the grant of habeas corpus, finding the jury verdict reliable.
• D.A.D. v. State
  566 So. 2d 257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-03-13 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Edmond Gifford
  892 F.2d 263· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the special parole term, finding no violation of Rule 15(b), due process, or the Confrontation Clause, and acknowledging the government's concession on the parole term.
• Clark v. Ricketts
  886 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated, his Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims regarding a presentence interview were waived, but his death sentence is unconstitutional due to the lack of a jury trial on aggravating factors.
• DON v. Crispas C. NIX
  886 F.2d 203· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the defendant had a right to attend the deposition, the failure to object properly and the subsequent admission of the deposition were harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Duran
  886 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in disallowing inquiries into the paternity of a victim's child, as such inquiries constituted inadmissible evidence of past sexual behavior under Fed.R.Evid. 412.
• United States v. Chavis
  880 F.2d 788· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a warrantless station house search of a vehicle is permissible if probable cause existed at the scene of arrest, and that reverse sting operations using informants do not violate due process if the illegal activity was not manufactured by the government.
• Morgan v. Norwood Jackson
  869 F.2d 682· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust state remedies by fairly presenting their federal claim to the state courts, including the factual and legal premises, before seeking federal review.
• United States v. Burton
  866 F.2d 1057· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of laboratory urinalysis reports and affidavits did not violate the defendant's due process or confrontation rights, and the chain of custody was adequate for probation revocation.
• United States v. Calvo
  865 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a co-conspirator's statement after defense counsel opened the door, nor in its other evidentiary rulings, and affirmed the convictions.
• Francis v. Dugger
  697 F. Supp. 472· S.D. Fla.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 4×
  The court denied Bobby Marion Francis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that any constitutional errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Williams v. State
  531 So. 2d 246· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-09-22 ·cited 4×
  This case addresses whether information from a confidential informant, whose reliability is determined solely by the police department, is sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest. The court held that such information is insufficient because it lacks the ne
• Bradley v. Colonial Mental Health & Retardation Servs. Bd.
  856 F.2d 703· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the Bradleys' due process rights were not violated because the employer's grievance procedure, established by an employee manual, provided sufficient procedural safeguards, and the Bradleys failed to demonstrate bias or an inability to confront their accusers.