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. A & S Council OIL Co.
  947 F.2d 1128· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while polygraph results are generally inadmissible to prove the truth of their results, a defendant should be allowed to cross-examine an expert witness about polygraph results the expert considered in forming an opinion about a key government witness's credib
• Graham v. Hoke
  946 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Cruz rule regarding the admission of codefendant confessions in joint trials should be applied retroactively, but that the admission of the codefendant's confession in this case was harmless error given the strength of the other evidence.
• United States v. Apfel
  945 F.2d 236· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in calculating the defendant's offense level based on one pound of methamphetamine for resale and finding the defendant was a manager or supervisor of the criminal activity.
• Bennie Cunningham v. Peters
  941 F.2d 535· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court should have allowed the jury to hear a third-party confession that was reliable, despite hearsay rules, to assist in separating the guilty from the innocent.
• United States v. Mokol
  939 F.2d 436· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying admission of the murdered witness's prior testimony, as the government failed to provide adequate corroboration.
• United States v. Diaz
  936 F.2d 786· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the alien status of the individuals transported and the defendant's knowledge of their illegal status beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Mata v. Ricketts
  937 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is denied.
• United States v. Campbell
  935 F.2d 39· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that co-defendant statements were properly admitted, that the school-zone statute is constitutional, and that sentencing calculations were appropriate.
• United States v. Burroughs
  935 F.2d 292· D.C. Cir.· 1991-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a co-defendant's hearsay statement.
• Sherley v. Seabold
  929 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability with a good-faith effort and the hearsay lacked sufficient indicia of reliabilit
• Clay v. State
  580 So. 2d 843· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-05-23 ·cited 2×
  Henry Lee Clay appeals his conviction for sexual battery of his two young daughters. The Florida Court of Appeal affirms, rejecting Clay's challenges to the admission of a videotaped interview with his younger daughter and his sufficiency-of-evidence argument regarding identity.
• Bagby v. Kuhlman
  932 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause if the defendant had a prior ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the witness's subsequent recantation is deemed untrustworthy.
• United States v. Brown
  927 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, and that the defendant's other assignments of error lacked merit.
• Paul v. State
  574 So. 2d 1194· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-02-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Disinger v. State
  574 So. 2d 268· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-02-07 ·cited 2×
  Robert Disinger, a criminal defendant convicted of sexual battery and indecent assault, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation on direct appeal. The court granted
• Layton v. State OF S.D.
  918 F.2d 739· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by his state court conviction or sentencing.
• Disinger v. State
  569 So. 2d 824· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding that while the use of a screen obscuring the defendant's view of witnesses might violate the Sixth Amendment, such an issue should have been raised on direct appeal and was not grounds for post-conviction
• Asberry v. State
  568 So. 2d 86· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-10-10 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Curtis Lee Asberry was convicted of robbery with a weapon and grand theft based partly on hearsay testimony from a non-testifying witness identifying him as the perpetrator. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the admission of the victim's and officer's
• Reddy v. Coombe
  916 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a non-testifying codefendant's incriminating statements at a joint trial violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even if the statements interlock, if they are not substantially the same and consistent on the major elements of the crime.
• Valenzuela-Gonzalez v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF Ariz.
  915 F.2d 1276· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that arraignment by closed-circuit television violates Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 10 and 43, requiring the defendant's physical presence in the courtroom.
• Barker v. Estelle
  913 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that Barker's prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because jeopardy did not attach at his juvenile fitness hearing under the amended California statute, and his due process rights were not violated as the right of confrontation does not apply to s
• Jeffries v. Crispus C. NIX
  912 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior under the rape shield law, and any error in excluding evidence of delusions was harmless.
• United States v. Risnes
  912 F.2d 957· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress inculpatory statements, limiting cross-examination, or denying a mistrial based on prosecutorial remarks.
• Capps v. Collins
  900 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the exclusion of irrelevant evidence did not violate the right to confrontation, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to introduce inadmissible evidence.
• United States v. Harvey
  900 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by dismissing the government's Notice of Intent to Proceed Under the Dangerous Special Offender Statute without an evidentiary hearing, but found no reversible error in the conviction phase of the trial.
• Darrel Lee McCABE v. Callahan
  894 F.2d 994· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims previously decided on direct appeal or in a prior § 2255 motion are not reviewable in a successive § 2255 motion.
• Wetz v. State
  561 So. 2d 1190· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court held that the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's statements, even if later deemed inadmissible under new precedent, was not error if the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the codefendant.
• Woods v. State
  556 So. 2d 752· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-11-07 ·cited 2×
  Florida appellate court reversed burglary and theft conviction because trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to require race-neutral explanations for peremptory challenges used to remove the only two black jurors, and also erred in admitting hearsay statements from a no
• Reutter v. Solem
  888 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's pending sentence commutation hearing, which could have been used for impeachment, constituted a Brady violation because the undisclosed evidence was material to the outcome of the trial.
• Cook v. State
  548 So. 2d 257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court should reverse the conviction because the use of a screen between the defendant and child witnesses violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
• United States v. Hedgcorth
  873 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court held that the napalm firebombs constructed by the defendants qualified as 'destructive devices' under federal law, and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
• Meryl Meder v. City OF Okla. City
  869 F.2d 553· 10th Cir.· 1989-03-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employee received adequate procedural due process regarding his termination, even if a property interest existed, and that his liberty interest claim also failed.
• Henderson v. A.L. Lockhart
  864 F.2d 1447· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that Henderson was denied effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his appeal, and that the underlying issue had merit.
• United States v. Sokoloff
  696 F. Supp. 1451· S.D. Fla.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that defendants failed to raise a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, and therefore denied their motion for bond pending appeal.
• Gholston v. Jones
  848 F.2d 1156· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the parole revocation was constitutionally sound, as the parolee had waived certain rights and the supervisor's report, containing an admission, was sufficiently reliable.
• United States v. Freidin
  849 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a memorandum was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) because it was not shown to have been made pursuant to a regular practice of the business, even if it possessed indicia of trustworthiness.
• Reddy v. Coombe
  846 F.2d 866· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the inference that the petitioner intended to rob the victim, thus sustaining his felony murder conviction.
• United States v. DeWATER
  846 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that intoxilyzer test results are admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically the public records and reports exception, and do not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Scott v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  845 F.2d 856· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 2×
  Administrative proceedings under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL) are civil, not quasi-criminal, and do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Murray
  843 F.2d 1582· 10th Cir.· 1988-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed a conviction for third degree murder and manslaughter, finding sufficient evidence for both, but reversed the withheld adjudication on manslaughter based on precedent that a defendant cannot be convicted of multiple homicide offenses for a single death.
• Valladares v. United States
  841 F.2d 1089· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the claim based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel related to alibi and testimony, but remanded for findings on the interpreter and language barrier claims.
• United States v. Songer
  842 F.2d 240· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The imposition of a forfeiture sentence in absentia violates Rule 43(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the rule does not permit exceptions for sentencing.
• United States v. Spivey
  841 F.2d 799· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by limiting cross-examination, nor did it deprive him of a fair trial by allegedly destroying his counsel's credibility.
• M.C. v. State
  516 So. 2d 1076· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  A juvenile appellant was adjudicated delinquent for petit theft in a hearing conducted in her absence, despite her attorney's objection and request that she be taken into custody. The court reversed, holding that Florida law does not permit adjudicatory hearings to proceed withou
• United States v. Smith
  831 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Boggs v. Evitts
  818 F.2d 534· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The Sixth Circuit held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding the constitutional challenge to the Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure, requiring dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• State v. Enriquez
  503 So. 2d 383· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The grant of a new trial based on the admission of a codefendant's confession was error because the codefendant testified and was available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Gomez
  807 F.2d 1523· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial due to the prosecution's handling of the government's chief witness's employment file.
• Zuber v. State
  500 So. 2d 670· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-31 ·cited 2×
  Rebecca Zuber, age 16, was convicted of first-degree murder for persuading her friend Jerry Clenny to shoot her father. She appealed on grounds that evidence of her mental defects was wrongfully excluded and that a mistrial should have been granted after her codefendant's confess
• Pickett v. Bowen
  798 F.2d 1385· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted the writ of habeas corpus because the medical report was crucial evidence, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate the declarant's unavailability or establish sufficient indicia of reliability.