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

• Gorum v. Craven
  465 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-18 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting preliminary hearing testimony without a good faith effort to secure the witness's presence violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States ex rel. Arthur E. Martin H-4387 v. Brierley
  464 F.2d 529· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of confrontation, and improper appellate procedure were without merit.
• Williams v. Craven
  460 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his claims.
• Blackburn v. State
  261 So. 2d 861· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-05-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Cota v. Eyman
  453 F.2d 691· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury, when the prosecution knows the witness will do so, is impermissible if it adds critical weight to the prosecution's case not subject to cross-examination.
• Taylor v. United States
  452 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-30 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's allegations did not necessitate an evidentiary hearing for withdrawal of her guilty pleas.
• Webb v. State
  253 So. 2d 715· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-10-27 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  David Webb was convicted of robbery, use of a firearm in felony, and aggravated assault based in part on hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding the ownership of a vehicle allegedly used in one of three robberies. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new tria
• United States ex rel. John Mascia v. Hon. John Zelker
  450 F.2d 166· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-22 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  A guilty plea, entered with effective counsel, waives most constitutional claims, including those arising from a co-defendant's confession, unless the coercion has an 'abiding impact' on the plea.
• United States v. Jackson
  452 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Jencks Act, which precludes pretrial discovery of government witness statements, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and the timing of production under the Act did not prejudice the defendant.
• Zide v. State
  253 So. 2d 917· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-09-14 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Zide appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial, rejecting all of Zide's claims including denial of counsel, due process violations, defects in the information, trial counsel incompetence, use of
• United States v. Ketchum
  445 F.2d 860· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that admitting a photographic copy of a vehicle's title certificate was not erroneous, as it was not crucial evidence and the vehicle's identity was otherwise undisputed.
• Robert L. Hunt (Alias Donald Adams) v. State OF Ga.
  445 F.2d 1228· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner was adequately represented by counsel and that his voluntary guilty plea waived any non-jurisdictional defects, including challenges to the grand jury composition.
• United States ex rel. Robert Favre v. Henderson
  444 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief without determining if the alleged hearsay testimony deprived the defendant of a fundamentally fair trial.
• United States v. Sheets
  443 F.2d 353· 8th Cir.· 1971-06-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction for securities fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy.
• Little v. Rhay
  439 F.2d 765· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the warrantless search was reasonable under the pre-Chimel totality of the circumstances test and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus.
• Irvin v. State
  246 So. 2d 592· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-03-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by the warnings given before interrogation, the voluntariness of his statement, or the procedure involving a co-defendant's identification.
• In re Penn
  443 F.2d 663· D.C. Cir.· 1970-12-14 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's own testimony, admitting mental illness and detailing incidents involving threats and a penknife, was sufficient competent evidence to support the jury's finding that he was likely to injure himself or others, thus affirming his commitment.
• Jackson v. United States
  439 F.2d 529· D.C. Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated because the codefendants testified and were subject to cross-examination, and that the trial judge's subsequent determination of voluntariness of the confession was sufficient.
• Duggar v. United States
  434 F.2d 345· 10th Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession, even if it implicated the defendant, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause because the codefendant was available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Rice
  435 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Bruton rule does not require reversal when the confessing codefendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination, and that the appellants' convictions were final before the Wade decision on insanity instructions.
• United States v. Santos
  430 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's hearsay statements, which were not powerfully incriminating to the defendant, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Hudson v. United States
  429 F.2d 1311· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the contents of a tape recording were admissible and that a new claim not raised in the district court could not be considered on appeal.
• Alley v. United States
  426 F.2d 877· 8th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's motion to vacate his conviction, as his claims of improper indictment amendment, improper severance, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper use of a codefendant's confession lacked merit.
• Aulet v. United States
  425 F.2d 175· 7th Cir.· 1970-04-29 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding entrapment and the government's failure to produce an informant were previously decided or waived, and thus the denial of his motion to vacate sentence was proper.
• McHENRY v. United States
  420 F.2d 927· 10th Cir.· 1970-01-20 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession during a joint trial was not a constitutional violation when the codefendant testified and the appellant also confessed, negating the prejudice addressed in Bruton.
• Welton Vanhook v. Craven
  419 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-14 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions may warrant redetermination of claims previously rejected, and that the district court erred in not considering the merits of the Anders claim without the state court record.
• Fritzberg v. State
  416 F.2d 917· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's sentence was not in excess of the statutory maximum and that he was not denied due process, as his case did not require a separate hearing like that in Specht v. Patterson.
• United States ex rel. David T. Felton v. Rundle
  410 F.2d 1300· 3d Cir.· 1969-05-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissent holds that the trial court's refusal to make a police report containing potentially exculpatory information available to the defense upon request violated due process.
• Frazier v. Langlois
  412 F.2d 766· 1st Cir.· 1969-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies for the issues raised in his habeas corpus petition.
• Gross v. United States
  408 F.2d 1297· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pre-trial identification procedure was unduly suggestive and violated due process, requiring exclusion of the evidence and potentially a new trial.
• Gauthier v. Burke
  402 F.2d 459· 7th Cir.· 1968-10-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing.
• Hooper v. Swenson
  401 F.2d 352· 8th Cir.· 1968-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of an accomplice's statement was harmless error and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Olander Tuck
  380 F.2d 857· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government accorded reasonable cooperation in securing the informant's appearance and that the trial judge did not err in denying motions for a continuance or mistrial, nor did he violate the appellant's constitutional rights.
• Will Jones v. People OF the State OF Cal.
  364 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-11 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's counsel's stipulations and waivers at trial did not violate his constitutional rights, and the denial of his habeas corpus petition was correct.
• McINTOSH v. United States
  362 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-24 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Ohio court's vacation of the sentence and allowance for withdrawal of the guilty plea effectively nullified the judgment on the Iowa charge, thus precluding a double jeopardy claim for the subsequent Iowa trial.
• The United States v. Clayton Chem. & Packaging Co.
  357 F.2d 1009· C.C.P.A.· 1965-06-24 ·cited 2×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court should consider the appeal with the admitted affidavits, as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them, and the merchandise's United States value is based on its offering price.
• Thompson v. United States
  315 F.2d 689· 6th Cir.· 1963-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the grounds raised by the appellant were either not cognizable under a motion to vacate sentence, lacked factual support, or were not properly preserved.
• Perez v. State
  151 So. 2d 686· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-04-09 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying the defendant's motion for production of an informer or in admitting evidence from a search and seizure.
• Becker v. Webster
  171 F.2d 762· 2d Cir.· 1949-01-04 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the deviation from the Manual's requirement that the accused be present during witness examinations at a preliminary investigation was substantial enough to deprive the court-martial of jurisdiction.
• McCray v. State
  418 So. 3d 260· Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-08-13 ·cited 1×
  A trial court commits reversible error by excluding evidence of a prior violent incident when that evidence provides a plausible alternative explanation for injury evidence central to the prosecution's case and would allow the defendant to impeach key prosecution witnesses throug
• Bell v. State
  421 So. 3d 399· Fla.· 2025-07-08 ·cited 1×
  Michael Bernard Bell, convicted of two first-degree murders in 1993 and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief, which raised claims of newly discovered evidence in the form of Brady and Giglio violations based on alleged witness
• Nipper v. State
  398 So. 3d 600· Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-12-18 ·cited 1×
  Mathew Nipper was convicted of burglary and battery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court erred by allowing the State's entire case-in-chief to proceed without Nipper's presence when he was hos
• Arnold v. State
  358 So. 3d 792· Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-01-18 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress a defendant's statement but reversed and remanded a probation revocation sentencing hearing conducted remotely via Zoom. The court found that while the statement's admission might have been error, it was harmless due
• T.T.W. v. State
  47 Fla. L. Weekly D1409· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-09-30 ·cited 1×
  A juvenile defendant challenged his trial court's allowing a police officer to testify via Zoom without a case-specific finding of necessity, arguing this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court reversed and remanded, requiring the trial court to make expli
• Del. Opinion 321510
  2019 WL 6048089· Del. Super. Ct.· 2021-06-23 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The Court denied the defendant's motions for postconviction relief, discovery, and an evidentiary hearing. The court found that most of the defendant's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to raise them in prior proceedings or because they had been previously adjudicate
• Murphy v. State
  317 So. 3d 1255· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-05-05 ·cited 1×
  Evidence of a sexual assault victim's prior false or fabricated sexual assault allegation may be excluded without violating the Confrontation Clause where the prior incident lacks logical connection to the charged offense, involves different perpetrators and circumstances, and th
• Thurston v. State
  307 So. 3d 714· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-10-28 ·cited 1×
  The trial court properly admitted the victim's testimony regarding Muff's out-of-court identification of the appellant by name because the statement was not hearsay, as it was offered to show how the victim learned the suspect's identity rather than to prove the truth that the pe
• Deangelo Marquis Woods v. State
  295 So. 3d 919· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-06-08 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for manslaughter, robbery, and burglary, holding that the trial court did not err in preventing the defendant from introducing evidence of a deceased witness's prior convictions. The court reasoned that the witness's statements, introduce
• Macauley v. State
  306 So. 3d 196· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-06-03 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed a defendant's murder convictions because the trial court improperly excluded exculpatory evidence. This evidence consisted of a jailhouse informant's testimony about another individual's alleged confession to the murders, which the court found should
• Akeen Kadoni Paul v. State
  277 So. 3d 232· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-07-22 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Akeen Kadoni Paul for burglary and resisting an officer. The court found no reversible error in the admission of co-conspirator statements, jury instructions, consideration of jail calls at sentencing, or the proportiona