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. Sterba
  22 F. Supp. 2d 1333· M.D. Fla.· 1998-08-13 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial can bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Conner v. State
  709 So. 2d 170· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the elderly person hearsay exception statute is constitutional, but certain probation conditions imposed without oral pronouncement are invalid.
• Robinson v. City of Tampa
  120 F. Supp. 730· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-17 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that Younger abstention applies, requiring the federal court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case due to an ongoing state judicial proceeding involving important state interests.
• Moore v. State
  658 So. 2d 600· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-07-19 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements without making case-specific findings of reliability, thus denying the appellant due process.
• Cherryhomes v. State
  635 So. 2d 985· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-04-15 ·cited 2×
  George Cherryhomes appeals his conviction for capital sexual battery of his daughter, challenging the admission of his seven-year-old daughter's hearsay statements describing sexual abuse and his own incriminating statement to police. The court reverses, holding that a child's in
• Young v. State
  624 So. 2d 794· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-09-24 ·cited 2×
  James Young appeals his conviction for capital sexual battery of two young girls, arguing that videotaped testimony of child victims should not have been taken to the jury room without supervision. The appellate court affirms the conviction but certifies a question of great publi
• Hoversten v. State OF Iowa
  998 F.2d 614· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the use of a one-way mirror to shield a child witness from the defendant violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because no case-specific finding of necessity was made, and this error was not harmless.
• Stoner v. Sowders
  997 F.2d 209· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The admission of videotaped depositions of witnesses without a sufficient showing of their unavailability violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Mora
  994 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the entrapment defense, discovery rulings, informant production, cross-examination restrictions, or sufficiency of the evidence.
• Woolsey v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd. & Fed. Aviation Admin.
  993 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the NTSB correctly determined that Prestige Touring, Inc. operated as a common carrier, thus subjecting Roger E. Woolsey to the stricter safety regulations of FAR Part 135.
• United States v. Innamorati
  996 F.2d 456· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one possession conviction due to insufficient evidence, remanding for resentencing. The court also addressed the admissibility of grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Seavoy
  995 F.2d 1414· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's prior sworn testimony under the residual hearsay exception was proper, and that the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and a sentence enhancement for firearm use were not erroneous.
• United States v. Sallins
  993 F.2d 344· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-18 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the contents of a police radio dispatch and a 911 computer record, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, constituted inadmissible hearsay and their admission was not harmless error.
• United States v. Hernandez
  995 F.2d 307· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that jury instructions were adequate, evidence supported convictions for conspiracy, possession, and firearm offenses, and entrapment defense was not warranted.
• Lowery v. Collins
  988 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a videotaped interview of a child complainant, without the child testifying in court and being subject to cross-examination, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and such an error is not harmless when the videotape likely contributed to the convic
• United States v. Garrett A. Tansley
  986 F.2d 880· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the calculations for offense levels in sentencing were proper and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Jeromey Clay Parker
  989 F.2d 948· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary hearing is part of a criminal proceeding and does not bar subsequent prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 5032, and that the victim sustained serious bodily injury supporting an offense level increase.
• United States v. Hall
  989 F.2d 711· 4th Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper cross-examination, which involved reading from the defendant's wife's inadmissible statement and violating marital privilege, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Foster
  986 F.2d 541· D.C. Cir.· 1993-03-02 ·cited 2×
  A law enforcement officer testifying as an eyewitness may not refuse to answer questions about the location from which observations were made if that information is relevant and helpful to the defense, and the district court erred in sustaining relevancy objections to defense que
• United States v. Streich
  987 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's sentencing enhancements, holding that the defendant waived his right to challenge factual allegations in the Presentence Report by failing to object properly, and that hearsay evidence is admissible at sentencing.
• United States v. Bounds
  985 F.2d 188· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-18 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Cecil Gibson (90-6403) & Johnny Ray Baker (90-6431)
  985 F.2d 860· 6th Cir.· 1993-02-10 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that aggregating drug quantities from dismissed counts is permissible if supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and that confrontation rights do not apply at sentencing hearings.
• United States v. Martin
  984 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting laboratory urinalysis reports without allowing independent retesting violated the defendant's due process right to confrontation at a supervised release revocation hearing.
• United States v. Harris
  982 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in determining the defendant was a manager or supervisor, nor in calculating his criminal history score. The court also held that the district court did not err in refusing to consider hearsay evidence at sentencing, as such a de
• United States v. Jones
  982 F.2d 380· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a blanket prohibition on recross examination, when new matters are elicited on redirect, violates the Confrontation Clause and is not harmless error if the testimony likely contributed to conviction. The court also found the sentencing judge lacked sufficient
• United States v. Star
  979 F.2d 1319· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, as there was sufficient evidence to support such a finding. The court also found the admission of Noah One Star's grand jury testimony permissible, but urged redaction.
• United States v. Pedroli
  979 F.2d 116· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-29 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a district court may consider hearsay in a Presentence Report during sentencing, and that the calculation of the defendant's criminal history category was proper.
• Carter v. State
  606 So. 2d 675· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-09-23 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Jeffrey Dean Carter's convictions for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct against his daughter, but reversed his sentences as improper departures from sentencing guidelines and remanded for resentencing. The court re
• Forbes v. Trigg
  976 F.2d 308· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Indiana Department of Corrections' rule allowing officials to refuse to appear as witnesses in disciplinary hearings violates due process, but affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition on other grounds.
• United States v. Mason
  974 F.2d 897· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm can have his sentence enhanced based on the underlying conduct of another offense, even if not convicted of that offense, and that procedural claims regarding sentencing were waived or lacked me
• United States v. Abdul Aziz Ahmad
  974 F.2d 1163· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b) is constitutional and that the defendant invited any error in excusing a juror without his presence.
• Tinsley v. Kuhlmann
  973 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-26 ·cited 2×
  Any violation of Tinsley's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or Brady rights was harmless error because there is no reasonable probability that disclosure of the officer's disciplinary records would have changed the trial outcome.
• United States v. Bost
  968 F.2d 729· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the firearm enhancement was improper due to a lack of evidence connecting the seized weapons to the offense, but the leadership role enhancement was proper.
• United States v. Charles V. Ushery (91-5716) & Benjamin R. Burton (91-5715)
  968 F.2d 575· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the denial of the motions to suppress, the convictions, and the sentence, finding that the encounters were consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause, and that the evidence and sentencing were proper.
• Valerio Ernest Miranda v. Cooper
  967 F.2d 392· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Miranda failed to exhaust available state remedies by not fairly presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and his claims lack merit.
• United States v. Montoya
  967 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation and Fifth Amendment due process claims by failing to raise them in the district court, and the sentencing court did not commit plain error by relying on reliable hearsay.
• United States v. Huei Mei Wang
  964 F.2d 811· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions taken before the defendant was aware of the specific charges violated her Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination, warranting a new trial.
• Brewer v. Crispus NIX
  963 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that excluding individuals over sixty-five from jury duty does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement, and that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the exact timing of a witness's immunity grant.
• FOY v. J.F. Donnelly
  959 F.2d 1307· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the content of an accomplice's confession was not disclosed to the jury to the extent necessary to violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for armed robbery, and the prosecutor d
• United States v. Robinson-Munoz
  961 F.2d 300· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a co-defendant's statement, that sufficient evidence proved appellants' knowledge of the marijuana, and that jurisdiction was properly established.
• Campbell v. Blodgett
  978 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial, including jury selection, can be knowingly and voluntarily waived, even in a capital case, as long as it does not implicate Confrontation Clause issues.
• Valenci Williams v. State
  593 So. 2d 1189· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-02-18 ·cited 2×
  Valenci Williams appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's admission of his nontestifying codefendant's custodial statement as substantive evidence against him. The court reverses, finding the admission violated Williams's Sixth Amendment Confronta
• Denham v. Deeds
  954 F.2d 1501· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Moore
  954 F.2d 379· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant, nor in its jury instructions or rulings on prosecutorial comments.
• United States v. Wilson
  954 F.2d 374· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court is constrained by circuit precedent to affirm the district court's decision to increase the defendant's sentence based on unconvicted conduct.
• United States v. Evans
  950 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a non-testifying witness's statement as substantive evidence of guilt for gun possession constituted prejudicial hearsay, requiring reversal of those convictions.
• Martinez v. McCAUGHTRY
  951 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of the co-defendant's statements did not violate the appellant's confrontation clause rights because the statements were not offered for their truth (non-hearsay) or, alternatively, were admissible under the excited utterance exception.
• United States v. Ellis
  951 F.2d 580· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that hearsay statements of a deceased witness were admissible under the Confrontation Clause, personal notes were discoverable after waiver of privilege, and sentence enhancements were properly calculated.
• Escalona v. State
  588 So. 2d 337· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-11-12 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
• Wright v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  948 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court should have reviewed the Parole Commission's decision for abuse of discretion, and Wright's due process rights were violated.