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

• Busby v. Holt
  781 F.2d 1475· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the prosecutor calling a witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, as other evidence already established the inferences the prosecution sought.
• United States v. McCALLUM
  788 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury charge, affirming the defendant's conviction.
• DI Battisto v. State
  480 So. 2d 169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-12-17 ·cited 2×
  Di Battisto was convicted of grand theft for defrauding an elderly victim of home sale proceeds. On appeal, he challenged the admission of the victim's videotaped deposition taken to perpetuate her testimony, arguing she was able to attend trial. The court affirmed, holding that
• Wilson v. State
  479 So. 2d 273· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-12-06 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Edward Lee Wilson, Jr. was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping after a trial in which the state introduced a videotaped deposition of the victim that was taken without notice to Wilson or his jailer and without Wilson's presence. The court reversed the conviction, holding t
• Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright
  772 F.2d 780· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 2×
  A federal court granting a writ of habeas corpus must explain why the statutory presumption of correctness of state court findings does not apply. The district court's order granting the writ is vacated and remanded for specific findings.
• Busby v. Holt
  771 F.2d 1461· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's misconduct in calling a witness who intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and the trial court's error in permitting this, constituted a constitutional violation that was not harmless error.
• Carlton Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright
  760 F.2d 1148· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the application of the confrontation clause rule to the facts of this case was misplaced.
• Luciano Morra v. State
  467 So. 2d 742· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-04-02 ·cited 2×
  Morra was convicted of cocaine trafficking after the State presented expert testimony that a seized substance was cocaine, but did not introduce the physical substance into evidence because the defendant challenged the post-analysis chain of custody. The court affirmed, holding t
• United States v. Crispin
  757 F.2d 611· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that while the district court erred in admitting judgments of conviction for unlawful entry, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming other evidence. The conviction is affirmed.
• Saccomanno v. Scully
  758 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court failed to defer to the state appellate court's implied factual determination that the defendant's disruptive behavior justified his exclusion from the courtroom.
• Mechler v. Procunier
  754 F.2d 1294· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the state made a good faith effort to secure the witness and the testimony bore sufficient indicia of reliabi
• United States v. Morgan
  757 F.2d 1074· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the examination of a government informant, as the limitations did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  756 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that compelling a voice exemplar does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments and that the contempt hearing provided sufficient due process.
• Carlos v. Wyrick
  753 F.2d 691· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of testimony from a prosecution witness who refused to identify his accomplice violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the withheld information was not collateral.
• United States v. Meros
  613 F. Supp. 18· M.D. Fla.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that defendants and their counsel intentionally violated the court's order by pursuing objections in Swiss courts and enjoined them from further frustrating the deposition process, reserving sanctions for future violations.
• United States v. Leocadio Figueroa
  750 F.2d 232· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding telephone conversations, which constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause, was prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Frascone
  747 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were not reversible due to prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary rulings, or instructional errors, affirming the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Houser
  746 F.2d 55· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that the BATF tracer form 7520.5 was inadmissible hearsay and its admission was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Perry
  740 F.2d 854· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Brantley v. McKASKLE
  722 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The federal court must defer to state court findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but may independently review conclusions of law regarding confession voluntariness.
• Leevonn Cloud v. Trs. OF Boston Univ.
  720 F.2d 721· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the university's disciplinary hearing procedures did not violate the student's contract rights or statutory privacy rights, and thus summary judgment for the university was appropriate.
• Featherstone v. State
  440 So. 2d 457· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-11-02 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Featherstone appeals his probation revocation and sentence, challenging the trial court's refusal to require disclosure of anonymous witnesses' identities during the revocation hearing. The appellate court holds that the State must establish confidential informant status through
• Bradford v. State
  435 So. 2d 962· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-08-05 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  David Leon Bradford appeals the revocation of his probation and imposition of a consecutive three-year sentence for uttering a forged instrument. The court reversed, finding that Bradford was denied due process because the probation revocation hearing was conducted without proper
• United States v. Marquez
  687 F.2d 328· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the seizure of the shotgun was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest and under the plain view doctrine, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or mistrial due to a witness's unavailability.
• United States v. Anderson Dewell Parsons
  646 F.2d 1275· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy petition was admissible evidence and that the district court did not err in its handling of the defendant's direct examination or in refusing a jury instruction on debtor's ability to repay for most counts. However, convictions on two counts wer
• Black v. Woods
  651 F.2d 528· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prosecution's calling of a witness who refused to testify did not violate due process, nor did the admission of her prior statements violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause, as the defendant forfeited that right.
• United States ex rel. Curtis Houston v. Warden, Stateville Corr. Ctr., & Ill. Prisoner Review Bd.
  635 F.2d 656· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  A prisoner serving a determinate sentence is not entitled to greater due process safeguards than those afforded to a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence before being deprived of good-time credit.
• United States v. Withers
  637 F.2d 445· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to allow cross-examination of the complaining witness regarding a prior misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction, as it was relevant to showing the witness's motive to fabricate the kidnapping charge.
• United States v. Vasquez-Ramirez
  629 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-16 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in suppressing unsigned depositions of material witnesses because the government failed to make a good faith effort to secure their attendance at trial.
• United States v. Hoyt Powell
  611 F.2d 41· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 2×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  A district court may proceed with a trial in absentia when a defendant, initially present, voluntarily absents himself without a compelling reason after being notified of the trial date.
• Elliott v. Thompson
  599 F.2d 767· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the confession voluntary and any Bruton Rule violation to be harmless error.
• Petition of Supreme Court Special Comm. for Lawyer Disciplinary Procedures to Amend Integration Rule
  373 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1979-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted major revisions to the Integration Rule articles governing attorney discipline, approving most recommendations from the Supreme Court Special Committee for Lawyer Disciplinary Procedures while rejecting others as unnecessary or unworkable. The de
• Mims v. State
  367 So. 2d 706· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-02-20 ·cited 2×
  Michael Mims appeals his conviction for burglary and trespass, challenging the admission of his co-defendant Hutto's confession that incriminated him despite an attempt to expurgate Mims' name. The Florida First DCA reversed, holding that the inadequately sanitized confession vio
• Ringquist v. Hampton
  582 F.2d 1138· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the IRS auditor's discharge was supported by a rational basis and proper procedures were followed.
• State of Fla. ex rel. Archie McCRIMMON v. Lester
  354 So. 2d 381· Fla.· 1977-12-23 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus filed by indigent criminal defendants challenging trial court orders that denied funding for deposition copies and refused non-waiver continuances. The Court held that while defendants have a right to discovery, they cannot requ
• Simpson v. Kreiger
  565 F.2d 390· 6th Cir.· 1977-11-25 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's arguments for habeas corpus relief were without merit, affirming the district court's denial of his petition.
• Reddy v. Jones
  572 F.2d 979· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court, in dissent, argues that the denial of rehearing en banc was improper because the lower court's reasoning regarding the non-disclosure of witness inducements and exculpatory statements violated due process principles.
• Algeroy A. Rozell v. Estelle
  554 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state's evidentiary rule prohibiting inquiry into a rape victim's prior sexual acts does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the inquiry would raise collateral issues and confuse the jury.
• United States v. Baynes
  548 F.2d 481· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-01 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Affirmance by judgment order without an opinion does not constitute a denial of due process.
• Azbill v. Pogue
  534 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-06 ·cited 2×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel's decision not to extensively cross-examine a key witness regarding juvenile offenses, due to trial court restrictions, did not constitute a deliberate bypass of state remedies.
• United States v. Hart
  526 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the magistrate was not required to permit cross-examination to elicit the informer's identity and that the confrontation clause was not violated by refusal to produce a written statement.
• Galloway v. Lou V. Brewer
  525 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the State must produce all working materials related to a polygraph examination, and if their exclusion prejudiced the defendant, a new trial must be ordered.
• Grimes v. State
  321 So. 2d 584· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-10-10 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Ford v. State
  317 So. 2d 473· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-08-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Kenneth Lee Ford appealed his nolo contendere plea to a robbery charge, arguing the trial court failed to explicitly advise him of his rights against self-incrimination, to jury trial, and to confront accusers. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that whe
• Tarantino v. State
  311 So. 2d 789· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-04-15 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• The N. Am. Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  512 F.2d 238· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the criminal contempt convictions of over 700 miners were invalid due to fundamental due process violations, including lack of proper notice, failure to state essential facts, and improper burden of proof.
• Hill v. State
  297 So. 2d 58· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-06-26 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction relief allegations.
• United States v. Kitchen
  488 F.2d 572· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's failure to produce a material informant, Sammy Floyd, at trial, without demonstrating genuine inability through reasonable efforts, constitutes reversible error requiring a new trial or further proceedings.
• Mozingo v. Craven
  475 F.2d 1254· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court held that a prior parole revocation, even if followed by subsequent revocations, could have collateral consequences and thus was not moot, requiring a due process hearing.
• Stubbs v. Louie L. Wainwright
  468 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-14 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation