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

• Damon v. State
  397 So. 2d 1224· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-05-12 ·cited 68×·via Right To Confrontation
  Damon and Ladler were convicted of third-degree murder and burglary arising from the brutal 1976 murder of Wiley Swiney, where both defendants confessed to their respective roles. The defendants appealed challenging the joint trial, the admissibility of each other's confessions,
• United States v. Goodman
  605 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court also found that limitations
• United States v. Hitsman
  604 F.2d 443· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-15 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or motions.
• United States v. Caro
  569 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admissible evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly participated in the conspiracy.
• United States v. Sol Mayer
  556 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the district court's undue restriction of the defendant's cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses, concerning their motivation for testifying, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, and this error, compounded by a jury ins
• United States v. Anderson
  509 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 68×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the warrantless search was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the use of an in camera hearing to protect informant identity was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Squella-Avendano
  478 F.2d 433· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-13 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient for reasonable jurors to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed and imported cocaine, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary and procedura
• United States v. Puco
  476 F.2d 1099· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 68×
  The court clarified that its prior decision did not create a new, unworkable test for admitting co-conspirator declarations, but rather suggested a reliability inquiry consistent with existing precedent.
• United States v. Williams
  447 F.2d 1285· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 68×
  The admission of expert witness testimony based on records not themselves introduced into evidence is permissible under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and federal hearsay rules, provided the expert is available for cross-examination and the sources are reasonably reli
• United States v. Glasser
  443 F.2d 994· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-21 ·cited 68×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed Glasser's conviction on the conspiracy count but reversed his convictions on the extortion counts, finding that while some evidentiary errors occurred, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence for the conspiracy charge.
• United States v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
  433 F.2d 174· 3d Cir.· 1970-09-23 ·cited 68×
  The dissenting judge would grant a new trial for the appellants due to improper and inflammatory cross-examination by the government attorney.
• United States v. Carmine Persico
  425 F.2d 1375· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 68×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying a mistrial due to publicity, limiting cross-examination of witnesses for safety reasons, admitting evidence of other crimes, or denying dismissal based on repeated retrials and delay.
• United States v. Danzey
  594 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 67×
  The court held that evidence of similar acts was admissible to prove identity and that a witness's identification testimony, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient to support a conviction.
• United States v. Fuentes
  563 F.2d 527· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 67×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that tape recordings were admissible, the informant's absence did not violate confrontation rights, and the trial court did not err in refusing a second competency examination.
• Ignacio v. People OF the Territory OF Guam
  413 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 67×
  The court held that while the admission of co-defendants' extrajudicial statements at a joint trial may violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, such a violation can be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming. The court also held that the appe
• Pantoja v. State
  59 So. 3d 1092· Fla.· 2011-03-03 ·cited 66×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of evidence that a child sexual abuse victim had previously made a false accusation of molestation against her uncle, resolving a conflict between district courts regarding whether prior false accusations are admissible to impeach wi
• Jerone Hunter v. State
  8 So. 3d 1052· Fla.· 2008-09-25 ·cited 66×
  Jerone Hunter was convicted of six first-degree murders and sentenced to death for his participation in a brutal home invasion where six victims were beaten to death with baseball bats. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentences, finding his procedural
• United States v. Lanese
  890 F.2d 1284· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions for extortionate debt collection but remanded Lanese's sentence for specific findings on the number of participants and reversed Romano's sentence for resentencing due to an erroneous managerial enhancement.
• United States v. Cerone
  830 F.2d 938· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-08 ·cited 66×
  The court held that convictions for conspiracy and substantive Travel Act violations do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that jury instructions, while potentially confusing, constituted harmless error. The court also affirmed the admission of co-conspirator statements
• Dobbert v. Strickland
  718 F.2d 1518· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-19 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's claims lacked constitutional merit or were procedurally barred.
• United States v. Kennedy
  714 F.2d 968· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 66×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the accumulation of evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of rape and felony murder, and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Raineri
  670 F.2d 702· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in pretrial or trial rulings, and that the evidence was sufficient.
• United States v. Alvarez
  584 F.2d 694· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-20 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the decedent's out-of-court statements implicating the appellant were inadmissible hearsay under both the coconspirator exception and the declaration against penal interest exception, as they lacked sufficient independent corroboration and trustworthiness.
• United States v. Cole
  449 F.2d 194· 8th Cir.· 1971-10-05 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, discovery denials were not an abuse of discretion, cross-examination was properly limited, and the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive.
• United States v. Germaine Haili
  443 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 66×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for smuggling, illegal transportation, and conspiracy to smuggle and transport marijuana were affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• State v. Madison Lee Reynolds
  238 So. 2d 598· Fla.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 66×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a prisoner incarcerated in another state is "in custody" within the meaning of Florida's Rule 1.850 post-conviction relief procedures and approved the District Court of Appeal's decision permitting such a prisoner to seek post-conviction relief
• United States v. Schor
  418 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-06 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the appellant's conviction for bribery was based on sufficient evidence, the procedure used to answer jury questions in writing, outside the presence of the defendant and counsel, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Aiken
  373 F.2d 294· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-20 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony after a witness invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, nor in its jury instructions regarding illegal importation, reasonable doubt, or multiple conspiracies. Severance was not required for Cole, an
• Washington v. United States
  275 F.2d 687· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-11 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant was not entrapped and that he acted as a seller, not merely a purchasing agent.
• State v. Hollingsworth
  108 Fla. 607· Fla.· 1933-03-09 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of certiorari vacating the State Board of Medical Examiners' revocation of Dr. Tullidge's medical license, holding that the Board violated statutory procedural requirements by failing to properly serve the accused with charges,
• United States v. Leyva
  513 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 65×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the 35-year sentence for criminal contempt was excessive and an abuse of discretion, modifying it to 2 years, and affirmed the conviction.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Vidal Galdon Aquino
  378 F.2d 540· 3d Cir.· 1967-05-19 ·cited 65×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a statement obtained from a suspect in custody, after he requested counsel and before he had an opportunity to consult one, is inadmissible under Escobedo. The court also held that prior testimony of an unavailable witness, subjected to cross-examination, is a
• United States v. Lankford
  955 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1992-03-25 ·cited 64×
  The district court erred by prohibiting the defendant from cross-examining a key prosecution witness about the arrest of his sons on marijuana charges, as this limitation violated the Confrontation Clause. However, the error was harmless because the jury was already aware of the
• United States v. Garcia-Rosa
  876 F.2d 209· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. However, it found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain extrinsic act evidence.
• United States v. Yarbrough
  852 F.2d 1522· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 64×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the pretrial, trial, or sentencing phases.
• United States v. Alion Andersson
  813 F.2d 1450· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-03 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the hotel room and suitcase was justified by exigent circumstances and as a search incident to arrest, respectively. Admission of the coconspirator's statement and expert testimony was proper, and the Government complied with Brady an
• Suarez v. State
  481 So. 2d 1201· Fla.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 64×
  Ernesto Suarez appeals his death sentence for murdering a deputy sheriff during a high-speed chase following a convenience store robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting challenges regarding trial interpretation, admission of statem
• United States v. Lochan
  674 F.2d 960· 1st Cir.· 1982-04-01 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, the evidence was sufficient to prove knowing possession, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions.
• Chavis v. Rowe
  643 F.2d 1281· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-11 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that an inmate stated a due process claim by alleging failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and inadequate written reasons for disciplinary action, and an Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment due to severe overcrowding.
• United States v. Eaglin
  571 F.2d 1069· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for harboring an escaped federal prisoner was supported by sufficient evidence and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not constitute plain error. The admission of certain hearsay statements was deemed harmless er
• State v. Hassberger
  350 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida's highest court addressed whether a confidential informant's true identity can be withheld from a criminal defendant when the informant testifies at trial and the trial court finds the informant's safety is at risk. The court held that while a narrow 'personal safety' exc
• United States v. Journet
  544 F.2d 633· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confrontation
  A guilty plea must be vacated if the district judge fails to explicitly inform the defendant of every element enumerated in Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P.
• United States v. Insana
  423 F.2d 1165· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-06 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the use of a co-defendant's prior grand jury testimony to impeach his in-court claim of memory loss did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights, nor did the delayed sentencing of accomplices violate due process.
• Thornton v. Honorable Howard F. Corcoran
  407 F.2d 695· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-03 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court vacated prior orders and dissented from further discussion, finding no case or controversy and that prior actions lacked legal foundation.
• Farina v. State
  679 So. 2d 1151· Fla.· 1996-04-18 ·cited 63×·via Right To Confrontation
  Anthony Farina was convicted of first-degree murder in a fatal Taco Bell robbery and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and non-capital sentences but vacated the death sentence because the trial court erroneously excluded for cause a qualified p
• United States v. Towne
  870 F.2d 880· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 63×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 3575, but vacated the sentence enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) for two counts, remanding for resentencing.
• Cary Michael Lambrix v. State
  494 So. 2d 1143· Fla.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 63×·via Right To Confrontation
  Cary Lambrix was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant on February 5, 1983. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both convictions and death sentences, rejecting Lambrix's challenges to the jury qualification process, cross-exam
• United States v. Miller
  771 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 63×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Sherman Act is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to price-fixing, the indictment was sufficient, the grand jury composition challenge failed, and Jencks Act violations were harmless errors.
• United States v. Andrews
  765 F.2d 1491· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 63×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the joinder of defendants was proper, the entrapment defense was insufficient as a matter of law, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or jury instruction ruling
• United States v. Sterling
  742 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike testimony due to a Jencks Act violation, and that sufficient evidence supported the continuing criminal enterprise conviction.