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

• Peterson v. Gaughan
  404 F.2d 1375· 1st Cir.· 1968-12-19 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner waived his right to challenge the admission of hearsay evidence by failing to move to strike it after conditional admission, and that the statutory definition of a sexually dangerous person and the equal protection claims lacked merit.
• United States v. Jones
  402 F.2d 851· 2d Cir.· 1968-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the conviction could not stand in light of Bruton v. United States, as crucial testimony was improperly considered by the jury.
• United States ex rel. James F. O'Callahan v. Parker
  390 F.2d 360· 3d Cir.· 1968-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained via interrogatories, even if constitutionally impermissible, was harmless error because the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming and undisputed, and thus did not contribute to the verdict.
• McNAMARA v. Remenyi
  391 F.2d 128· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-28 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court should not have ordered the granting of security clearance before the administrative agency had completed further proceedings, especially when constitutional issues of separation of powers were involved.
• United States v. Wolcoff
  379 F.2d 521· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-02 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the severance of a co-defendant did not deny effective assistance of counsel and that cross-examination restrictions were not prejudicial.
• Butler v. Wilson
  365 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant could not rely on Mapp, Escobedo, or Pointer due to the timing of the conviction and the presence of counsel at the preliminary hearing.
• Rierra v. United States
  357 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-08 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The admission of out-of-court statements by a non-defendant witness, Joseph Vinet, through other witnesses, constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, requiring reversal.
• Freddy Green v. Bomar
  329 F.2d 796· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a denial of a preliminary hearing and alleged police brutality do not constitute grounds for federal habeas corpus relief when they do not affect the validity of the conviction.
• United States v. Davis
  262 F.2d 871· 7th Cir.· 1959-01-29 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excising portions of Jencks Act material, in denying a new trial based on a reversed prior conviction, or in limiting cross-examination of government witnesses.
• Lowery v. United States
  258 F.2d 194· 9th Cir.· 1958-07-21 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record for review, rendering it impossible to assess the merits of his claims.
• United States v. Bourjaily
  167 F.2d 993· 7th Cir.· 1948-05-19 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that striking a witness's entire testimony and denying further cross-examination, after the witness recanted and claimed threats, was prejudicial error.
• Burgess v. King
  130 F.2d 761· 8th Cir.· 1942-10-01 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner received a full and fair hearing and that the admission of affidavits without objection was not error.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Little Rock Furniture MFG. Co.
  123 F.2d 868· 8th Cir.· 1941-11-28 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that it would not decide contempt charges based solely on affidavits and appointed a Special Master to take testimony.
• In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
  346 So. 3d 1105· Fla.· 2022-07-14 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted permanent and expanded amendments to multiple Florida court procedure rules authorizing remote participation in court proceedings through communication technology, implemented effective October 1, 2022. The amendments, developed by a COVID-19 con
• Schluck v. State
  329 So. 3d 231· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-11-03 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for burglary and sexual battery, finding that the trial court improperly admitted a recording of the victim's statement to the police. The court held the statement was inadmissible hearsay because it did not qualify as an excited utteranc
• Baugh v. State
  253 So. 3d 761· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-08-24 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The trial court did not commit fundamental error by continuing the sentencing hearing to permit the victim to be heard, and the admission of the victim's unsworn statement, though erroneous, did not constitute fundamental error where the record does not show the court relied on i
• Stevenson v. State
  234 So. 3d 828· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-12-27 ·cited 3×
  In this direct criminal appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed Stevenson's convictions for lewd or lascivious offenses, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the eight-year-old child victim to testify while seated in front of the jur
• DOE v. State
  210 So. 3d 154· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-09-28 ·cited 3×
  Fifteen petitioners sought extraordinary writs to require judicial officers in Lee County to preside over Baker Act hearings in person at receiving facilities rather than via videoconference from the courthouse. The court denied the petitions, finding no express legal duty requir
• Vantavia B. Jackson-Johnson v. State
  188 So. 3d 133· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-04-06 ·cited 3×
  A former corrections deputy was convicted of official misconduct, culpable negligence, and accessory after the fact based in part on recordings of a third inmate's spontaneous statements about an incident where an inmate was allowed to attack another inmate. The appellate court a
• In re Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF Juv. Procedure 8.150
  184 So. 3d 1116· Fla.· 2016-02-11 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court approved proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150 governing contempt in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The amendments conform the rule to statutory changes and add substantive protections for juveniles, including counsel entitle
• Yero v. State
  138 So. 3d 1179· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-05-21 ·cited 3×
  Jorge Yero was convicted of third-degree grand theft after a restaurant surveillance video was destroyed before trial. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that the State's failure to preserve the video did not violate his due process or Sixth Amendment rights because the e
• Estevez v. State
  127 So. 3d 635· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-11-20 ·cited 3×
  Victor Diaz appeals his conviction for first-degree felony murder in a dual-jury trial with codefendant Rodriguez. The Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected Diaz's collateral estoppel argument but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred in allowing
• Shorter v. State
  98 So. 3d 685· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-10-03 ·cited 3×
  Irvin Shorter appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault, challenging the admissibility of detective testimony regarding his attempt to terminate a police interview and the trial court's admission of a DNA forensic report. The Fourth District affirms
• Banmah v. State
  87 So. 3d 101· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-04-25 ·cited 3×
  Anthony Banmah was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of armed robbery in connection with a flea market robbery that resulted in two deaths. He appealed his convictions and sentences, challenging the admission of substitute medical examiner testi
• Trahn Bowens v. State
  80 So. 3d 1056· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-02-01 ·cited 3×
  Trahn Bowens appeals his strong-arm robbery conviction on two grounds: that a surreptitious recording of a conversation violated Crawford v. Washington, and that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial motion after the State referenced a BOLO. The Fourth District affirmed, ho
• Sigifredo Benitez v. State
  57 So. 3d 939· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-03-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to be present during a critical stage of proceedings was violated because no interpreter was present when the court revoked his probation and imposed sentence.
• G.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  935 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-08-15 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  G.T., a dependent child in DCFS custody, appeals his involuntary commitment to a residential mental health treatment facility. The court reversed, holding that DCFS failed to present competent evidence of a diagnosed mental disorder, relying instead solely on hearsay from a psych
• A.K. v. State
  898 So. 2d 1112· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-03-30 ·cited 3×
  A.K., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for battery on an elderly crossing guard after a street altercation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's admission of reputation evidence regarding A.K.'s character as a bully constituted error, but the error w
• State v. Causey
  898 So. 2d 1096· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-03-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court's order barring child victim hearsay statements was erroneous because it misapplied the Confrontation Clause by requiring the defendant's presence at the time the statement was made, rather than just a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
• Grossman v. Crosby
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1233· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-31 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court denied Petitioner Martin E. Grossman's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Cipriano v. State
  883 So. 2d 363· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-09-29 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  Keith Cipriano appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his conviction for solicitation to commit first degree murder. The court reverses in part and remands, finding that Cipriano stated legally sufficient claims of ineffective assistance of
• Rodriguez v. State
  822 So. 2d 587· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-08-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper closing arguments, which called the defendant a liar without record support, deprived the defendant of a fair trial and were not harmless error.
• Najjar v. Reno
  97 F. Supp. 2d 1329· S.D. Fla.· 2000-05-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the petitioner's habeas corpus petition challenging his detention without bond, as the bond redetermination was a separate proceeding from the final order of deportation. The court vacated the bond redetermination decisions and re
• Ritchie v. State
  720 So. 2d 261· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-09-28 ·cited 3×
  Donna Ritchie was convicted of capital sexual battery against her young son based partly on the child's videotaped testimony. The court reverses and remands for a new trial because the trial court failed to make statutorily required, individualized findings of necessity for using
• Dorsey A. Sanders, III v. State
  689 So. 2d 410· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-03-07 ·cited 3×
  Sanders appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion challenging the admission of hearsay testimony about statements made by a contract killer. Sanders argues that because a co-defendant's convictions were reversed on appeal due to the same hearsay evidence being e
• United States v. Farley
  992 F.2d 1122· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing closed circuit testimony for the child victim and admitting certain hearsay statements, as these rulings were supported by the evidence and relevant legal standards.
• United States v. Sarbello
  985 F.2d 716· 3d Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Eighth Amendment requires a proportionality analysis for RICO forfeitures, and that the defendants made a prima facie showing of disproportionality, requiring remand for further analysis. The court also held that the indictment provided adequate notice of
• Griffin v. Spratt
  969 F.2d 16· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  Prison officials did not violate a prisoner's due process rights by discarding seized fermented beverages because there was no evidence of bad faith in their destruction, and reliance on an officer's testimony about the beverages was permissible in a disciplinary proceeding.
• United States v. Bourgeois
  950 F.2d 980· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 3×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the trial judge did not err in pretrial, trial, or post-trial rulings, nor did the sentencing judge abuse his discretion.
• United States v. Yu Kikumura
  947 F.2d 72· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a continuance to allow the defendant to secure new counsel was an abuse of discretion.
• Mitchell v. Hoke
  930 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 3×
  The admission of hearsay testimony concerning a lineup identification by a witness who did not testify violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Fidel Barragan Vargas
  933 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's procedure for presenting informant testimony violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and that the confrontation clause violations were not harmless error.
• United States v. Wright
  904 F.2d 403· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting lay witness testimony for identification and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated.
• Tullis v. State
  556 So. 2d 1165· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-30 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting impeachment of a state witness regarding past delusions and in excluding the testimony of a defense psychologist, nor was the sentence vindictive.
• United States v. Lane
  883 F.2d 1484· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(C) is constitutional as applied, that prior RICO convictions do not bar prosecution under this statute, and that the prosecutor's comment on post-arrest silence, while regrettable, did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Kindig
  854 F.2d 703· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 3×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for federal banking law violations, and that the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by restrictions on cross-examination.
• United States v. Holland
  850 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the record was insufficient to support the probation revocation because it did not demonstrate that the defendant was afforded his minimum due process rights, including the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
• United States v. Betty J. Johnson (86-1993)
  831 F.2d 124· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-15 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a non-practitioner selling bogus prescriptions for controlled substances can be convicted of unlawful distribution, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy convictions of all defendants.
• United States v. Villano
  797 F.2d 1547· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that when an oral sentence conflicts with a written judgment, the court must discern the sentencing judge's intent rather than automatically applying the oral sentence.
• Brown v. State
  449 So. 2d 1293· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-04-06 ·cited 3×
  William Lee Brown was convicted of manslaughter and appealed on two grounds: that he was improperly absent during a jury inquiry discussion and that admission of a police interrogation tape containing references to his codefendant's statements violated his Confrontation Clause ri