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

• Catarino Gonzales, Jr. v. Grammer
  848 F.2d 894· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prior guilty pleas were not entered in accord with due process, as the defendant was not sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights to make an intelligent choice.
• United States v. Valverde
  846 F.2d 513· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the district court did not err in denying the defendant's requests for expert services or in restricting expert testimony.
• United States v. Dennis
  843 F.2d 652· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge improperly limited the cross-examination of a key government witness regarding a pretrial conversation with the defense attorney, requiring remand for further findings and potential new trial.
• United States v. Dwain Knigge
  832 F.2d 1100· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements and other evidence against the defendant was proper, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Williams v. State
  515 So. 2d 1042· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-11-03 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Lee Williams appealed his conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible hearsay evidence—Detective Gross's testimony regarding co-conspirator James's post-arrest statements. The court agreed, finding b
• Toolate v. Borg
  828 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 4×
  A codefendant's in-court testimony that incriminates the defendant, but which the defendant cannot cross-examine, constitutes a Bruton error, but such error can be harmless if other overwhelming evidence of guilt exists.
• Payne v. LeFEVRE
  825 F.2d 702· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
• Pillette v. Dale Foltz & Frank Kelley
  824 F.2d 494· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that futility did not excuse this failure.
• United States v. ONE 1982 Chevrolet Crew-Cab Truck VIN 1GCHK33M9C143129
  810 F.2d 178· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment for forfeiture was proper because the government established probable cause and the claimant failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding his knowledge or affirmative defenses, and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause did not
• United States v. Gregory
  808 F.2d 679· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination on a witness's shoelaces was not a violation of confrontation rights and any error was harmless, and that informing the jury of the number of prior felony convictions was not error.
• Beck v. Norris
  801 F.2d 242· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the use of testimony from witnesses who had undergone hypnosis did not deprive the petitioner of a fair trial, and any error in a jury instruction regarding malice was harmless.
• Holland v. Scully
  797 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Illinois, constituted a Bruton violation that could not be considered harmless error.
• Shuman v. Wolff
  791 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession in a 1958 murder trial constituted harmless error, and that Nevada's mandatory death penalty statute for a person serving a life sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• United States v. Smith
  792 F.2d 441· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant who procures a witness's absence waives confrontation and hearsay objections to the witness's prior statement, and that the admission of a redacted, interlocking confession, even without a limiting instruction, was permissible.
• Beatty v. State
  486 So. 2d 59· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-04-09 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting anonymous hearsay testimony identifying the defendant as the perpetrator, even with a limiting instruction, constitutes reversible error denying the right of confrontation and a fair trial.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  786 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a paralegal's testimony before a grand jury does not require the government to show need and relevance, and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing or in considering an ex parte affidavit.
• United States v. Cardenas
  784 F.2d 937· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Bail Reform Act permits pretrial detention and does not violate due process by allowing evidence by proffer, and that the defendant's ties to Mexico and access to funds supported the detention order.
• United States v. Robinson
  783 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's unsworn statement to the jury, made with counsel's consent, does not constitute a waiver of counsel, and that the trial court did not err in balancing the right to impeach co-conspirators against the risk of prejudice to defendants.
• Abelino Rodriguez v. Ricketts
  777 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Due Process Clause does not require state courts to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea absent special circumstances, and that no conflict of interest affected the adequacy of appellate representation.
• Ervin Devere Ellison v. Sachs
  769 F.2d 955· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the admission of the child victim's hearsay statements violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
• Boone v. Marshall
  760 F.2d 117· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Ohio Rule of Evidence 801(D)(2)(e) does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and any such violation would be harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Fisher v. Rose
  757 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The district court abused its discretion by barring retrial based on the state's delay in retrying the petitioner, as the petitioner was no longer held under the constitutionally defective conviction.
• Kemp v. State
  464 So. 2d 1238· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-02-11 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination regarding the victim's prior sexual activity, as it was not relevant to the issues in the case.
• Rivera v. State
  462 So. 2d 540· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-11 ·cited 4×
  Roger Allan Rivera was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, not a firearm, after being identified through a photographic lineup. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress the pretrial identifications but reversed and remande
• United States v. Herrera-Britto
  739 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was valid, affirming the trial court's rulings.
• United States v. Vaughn
  736 F.2d 665· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the destruction of a chemist's notes did not constitute reversible error because the underlying evidence (cocaine samples) was available for independent analysis by the defendants.
• Lacy v. Gabriel
  732 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim, raised sua sponte by the district court and not exhausted in state courts, renders a habeas petition "mixed" and requires dismissal of that claim, but the petition is not considered mixed if the petitioner only rai
• Adams v. State
  445 So. 2d 1132· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-03-02 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  This case addresses the admissibility of confessions in joint criminal trials, specifically concerning the "Bruton rule" which prohibits the use of a co-defendant's confession that implicates another defendant. The court found that while there were some errors in how the confessi
• Egerstaffer v. Israel
  726 F.2d 1231· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The use of hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing is not per se unconstitutional if it bears substantial indicia of trustworthiness, and participation in a violent incident like pointing a gun is a sufficient ground for revocation.
• Nezowy v. United States
  723 F.2d 1120· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that cross-examining a defense witness about her invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege is trial error, but found the error to be harmless in this case.
• Whitfield v. State
  433 So. 2d 1285· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The concurring and dissenting opinion agrees with most of the majority's decision but disagrees with affirming points related to a discovery violation concerning the defendant's refusal to submit to fingerprinting and the subsequent jury instruction.
• Payne v. Janasz
  711 F.2d 1305· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the cumulative effect of trial errors, including the injection of an unnecessary 'lawful seizure' element and the admission of unreliable hearsay, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and a denial of due process.
• United States v. Salovitz
  701 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  A criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to make an opening statement, and the granting and timing of such statements are within the trial court's discretion.
• Jacques Barratteau v. State
  422 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-12-07 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in restricting cross-examination or in denying a mistrial based on prosecutorial comments.
• Remer J. Dasher v. Stripling
  685 F.2d 385· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's physical inability to attend trial, without waiver, requires reversal of a conviction obtained in absentia.
• Nichols J. Romano v. Wyrick
  681 F.2d 555· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition regarding the reckless driving conviction, finding no jurisdiction, and dismissed the probation revocation claim for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Flewallen v. Faulkner
  677 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The admission of out-of-court statements, read from transcripts and subjected to full cross-examination at trial, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, even without a contemporaneous opportunity to cross-examine the declarants when the statements were made.
• United States v. Cuyler
  653 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights to a speedy trial and confrontation were not violated, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. McMANAMAN
  653 F.2d 458· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-08 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court reviewed the admissibility of an insanity expert's testimony and whether the prosecution waived its objection by failing to timely object to the testimony.
• United States v. Benedict
  647 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to acts of foreign officials unless federal agents substantially participated in a joint venture, and the unavailability of physical evidence does not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Koger
  646 F.2d 1194· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the Speedy Trial Act was violated, sanctions were not appropriate, but the erroneous admission of evidence of a third party's conviction and incarceration required reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Reardon v. Manson
  644 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court failed to properly apply the presumption of correctness required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when overturning state court convictions based on the same record. The case is remanded for reconsideration.
• Elroy Hendrix v. Smith
  639 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement that inculpated the appellant, even with a limiting instruction, violated the appellant's confrontation rights and was not harmless error given the weakness of the prosecution's case.
• Eugene v. Klecker
  636 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the disciplinary procedures at the North Dakota State Penitentiary did not violate the inmate's constitutional rights, affirming the dismissal of his complaint.
• Glenn v. Dallman
  635 F.2d 1183· 6th Cir.· 1980-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief regarding the Confrontation Clause claim, but remanded the jury instruction issue for reconsideration in light of a subsequent state supreme court decision.
• Soap v. Carter
  632 F.2d 872· 10th Cir.· 1980-10-24 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially prejudicial remarks in closing argument, which appealed to stereotypes and created a probability of jury impairment, violated the petitioner's due process rights.
• James v. State
  400 So. 2d 571· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-10-22 ·cited 4×
  A discovery deposition taken under Rule 3.220(d) is inadmissible at trial when the witness is unavailable, even if the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine, unless the procedure to perpetuate testimony under Rule 3.190(j) is followed.
• United States v. Jackson
  627 F.2d 883· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-22 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court's failure to explicitly inform the defendant that it could not order concurrent state and federal sentences, and its variations from a verbatim recitation of Rule 11 rights, did not invalidate the guilty plea as the defendant was otherwise adeq
• Robbins v. Cardwell
  618 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the constitutional issue of precluding defense witness testimony for discovery violations was not properly presented on appeal because the defendant subsequently waived his right to testify and present a defense, rendering the exclusion irrelevant.
• Salter v. State
  382 So. 2d 892· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-04-30 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the trial court erred in unduly restricting the defendant's cross-examination of state witnesses regarding prior lineup misidentifications.