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. Lurz
  666 F.2d 69· 4th Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 76×
  The court held that separate conspiracies existed, allowing prosecution for both, and that evidence of a prior conviction could be used to prove elements of a continuing criminal enterprise other than the predicate felony. Convictions for the lesser included offense of conspiracy
• United States v. Phillips
  640 F.2d 87· 7th Cir.· 1981-02-06 ·cited 76×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial, denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, admitting certain evidence, or imposing consecutive sentences.
• United States v. Kelley
  526 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-26 ·cited 76×
  The court held that extrajudicial statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible if independent evidence establishes concert of action, and that the admission of such statements does not violate the Confrontation Clause if they bear traditional indicia of reliabili
• United States v. Wingate
  520 F.2d 309· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 76×
  A co-defendant's statement inculpating another may be admitted if, viewed with other evidence, it clearly implicates the co-defendant, even if not by name.
• United States v. Liddy
  509 F.2d 428· D.C. Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in conducting voir dire or in reading testimony taken outside the jury's presence, and affirmed the conviction.
• Freeman v. The Gould Special Sch. Dist. OF Lincoln Cnty.
  405 F.2d 1153· 8th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 76×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that the nonrenewal of public school teachers' contracts based on conclusory and unsupported charges of incompetence may state a claim for deprivation of constitutional rights under the Civil Rights Act.
• Rivera v. United States
  318 F.2d 606· 9th Cir.· 1963-05-28 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the inclusion of parole eligibility under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(a)(2) in a sentence for a violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a was unauthorized by statute, as that section prohibits parole for such offenses.
• United States v. Beale
  921 F.2d 1412· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 75×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of Roberts' statement violated Bruton, requiring a new trial for Gilbert, but affirmed other convictions and evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Rollins
  862 F.2d 1282· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-21 ·cited 75×
  The court affirmed both defendants' convictions but remanded Slaughter's case for reconsideration of his sentence.
• United States v. Valentine
  706 F.2d 282· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or denying severance motions, but that multiple convictions for simultaneous possession and receipt of firearms were improper.
• Griffin v. State
  526 So. 2d 752· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-06-03 ·cited 74×·via Right To Confrontation
  Donald Griffin was convicted of lewd assault on a child based primarily on a four-year-old victim's testimony and out-of-court statements. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court erred in determining the child's competency to tes
• United States v. Drake Williams
  809 F.2d 1072· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed most convictions but reversed some for specific defendants, finding that plea agreements did not preclude further indictment and that informal use immunity granted to Grossman was binding.
• United States v. Porter
  764 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-14 ·cited 74×
  The court held that post-arrest statements obtained after a suspect invoked their right to counsel, without the suspect initiating further communication, are inadmissible. The court also held that the procuring agent theory is not a valid defense under current drug distribution s
• Hall v. Louie L. Wainwright
  733 F.2d 766· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 74×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that a defendant may waive their right to be present at critical stages of a capital trial, and the specific circumstances of the defendant's absence during voir dire require further inquiry into knowing and voluntary waiver.
• United States v. Rice
  550 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 74×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on pre-indictment delay, severance, cross-examination limitations, admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) and 613(b), witness interviews, or jury requests for transcripts.
• United States v. Luttetus Perry
  550 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-22 ·cited 74×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling jury voir dire, admitting rebuttal testimony, or limiting cross-examination, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy.
• United States v. Morlang
  531 F.2d 183· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-30 ·cited 74×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony for impeachment purposes under recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Menichino
  497 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-29 ·cited 74×
  Incriminating statements volunteered by a defendant during booking, after being advised of Miranda rights and requesting an attorney, are admissible if not made in response to interrogation about criminal activity. The admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement is permissi
• United States v. Ruggiero
  472 F.2d 599· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defense access to grand jury testimony of witnesses, as there was no suppression of exculpatory evidence and the defense had means to obtain the testimony.
• United States v. Rizzo
  418 F.2d 71· 7th Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 74×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the admission of Elia's statement was not plain error despite Miranda issues due to lack of specific objection, and co-conspirator statements and state conviction records were admissible or harmless error.
• United States v. Serrano
  870 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 72×
  The court held that Serrano and Boscio's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, but Stamps' conviction was tainted by inadmissible hearsay, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Espinoza-Seanez
  862 F.2d 526· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 72×
  The court held that a rational jury could find sufficient evidence to establish the required intent for conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Regilio
  669 F.2d 1169· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated and that the admission of co-conspirator statements and the reconsideration of a suppression order were proper.
• United States v. Neff
  615 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 72×·via Right To Confrontation
  A taxpayer's wholesale assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on an income tax return, without demonstrating a real and appreciable danger of incrimination, does not constitute a valid defense to a charge of willful failure to file.
• United States v. Opager
  589 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 72×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the erroneous exclusion of business records and the government's failure to disclose an informant's whereabouts constituted reversible error.
• Sanford Thomas v. Wyrick
  535 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-28 ·cited 72×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in reversing the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the possibility of prejudice too speculative.
• United States v. Tutino
  883 F.2d 1125· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Larca, the denial of severance motions was not an abuse of discretion, the use of an anonymous jury was justified and properly managed, expert testimony was admissible, redacted statements were admissible under Bruton, an
• United States v. Julita De Parias
  805 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 71×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction existed under the Hobbs Act, and that limitations on cross-examination, admission of photographs, evidence of flight, co-defendant statements, and compelled hair samples were not reversible error.
• United States v. Barlow
  693 F.2d 954· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the appellant's alibi statement, denying a mistrial, admitting grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5), or denying a new trial motion.
• United States v. Robinson
  546 F.2d 309· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-18 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for a change of venue, in limiting cross-examination, or in its jury instructions regarding reasonable doubt, and that the destruction of FBI interview notes was harmless error. The evidence was sufficient to c
• N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor
  147 F.2d 297· D.C. Cir.· 1945-01-10 ·cited 71×
  Hospital records made in the regular course of business are admissible under the federal Shop Book Rule, even if they contain diagnoses or opinions, as evidence of the events they record.
• Wilding v. State
  674 So. 2d 114· Fla.· 1996-05-16 ·cited 70×
  Neil Wilson Wilding was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and burglary and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to jury misconduct, admission of prejudicial hearsay evidence regarding an anonymous tip, and testimo
• Adamson v. Ricketts
  865 F.2d 1011· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-22 ·cited 70×
• United States v. Rouco
  765 F.2d 983· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on jury selection, mistrial, suppression of statements, hearsay, expert testimony, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Wellington
  754 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings on the indictment amendment, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, severance, sufficiency of evidence, Speedy Trial Act claims, juror questionnaire use, or other miscellaneous assi
• United States v. Becton
  751 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) conviction and the first Travel Act conviction, but not the second Travel Act conviction. The court also found no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or indictment defects.
• United States v. Tille
  729 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-29 ·cited 70×
  The court held that proof of an agreement to commit a substantive RICO violation is sufficient for a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and that coconspirator statements made during the conspiracy's concealment efforts are admissible.
• United States v. Singer
  660 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that while the admission of a ten-year-old prior conviction was an abuse of discretion, it was harmless error, and that the denial of motions for acquittal and severance was proper.
• Wiley v. Sowders
  647 F.2d 642· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 70×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A criminal defendant is deprived of effective assistance of counsel when their attorney admits the client's guilt to the jury without first obtaining the client's consent to this strategy.
• United States v. Fleming
  594 F.2d 598· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-13 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of interlocking confessions from co-defendants was not a Bruton violation, and any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence. However, for one defendant, the admission of co-defendants' confessions was prejudicial and warranted a new tri
• United States v. Smith
  578 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of certain tape-recorded statements, even if inadmissible, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to Leonard Smith's conviction.
• United States v. West
  574 F.2d 1131· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the admission of grand jury testimony violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.
• United States v. Amos P. Brown, Sr.
  548 F.2d 1194· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 70×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of IRS agent testimony, based on out-of-court statements from taxpayers and testifying from memory, constituted inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial "other crimes" evidence, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Barnes
  486 F.2d 776· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 70×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government has a duty to make reasonable efforts to make a material informant witness available for interview or testimony if the informant participated in or witnessed the offense, and the defendant did not waive this right.
• HOY v. State
  353 So. 2d 826· Fla.· 1977-12-02 ·cited 69×
  Darrell Edwin Hoy appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and sentences of death for the rape and murder of two teenage victims on a Florida beach. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the convictions and death sentences, holding that pretrial publicity did not
• United States v. Weber
  437 F.2d 327· 3d Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·cited 69×
  The court held that consolidating indictments was proper and admitting hearsay statements from a deceased co-conspirator did not violate the defendant's rights.
• United States v. Lloyd
  431 F.2d 160· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-28 ·cited 69×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the Selective Service file into evidence and in quashing subpoenas for board members, as judicial review of classification is limited to the record and 'basis in fact'. The court also found no prejudice in the handling
• United States v. James T. Licavoli (82-3498)
  725 F.2d 1040· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 68×
  A defendant can be convicted under RICO even if acquitted of predicate state offenses or unable to be convicted of both under state law.
• United States v. DeLUCA
  692 F.2d 1277· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 68×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) must be reversed due to a prior definition of 'explosive' and that a multiple-object conspiracy conviction fails if any object is legally insufficient. However, other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Fielding
  645 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements by alleged co-conspirators, which were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, constituted reversible error under the hearsay rule.