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

• Tussey v. State
  793 So. 2d 1188· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-09-21
  Joseph Tussey was convicted of lewd acts upon a child based partly on hearsay testimony from the child's mother regarding statements the child made. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to make the specific statutory findings of reliability re
• Bruce v. State of Del.
  Del.· 2001-09-13
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that the defendant did not waive his right to a speedy trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers by requesting a continuance, as he did not agree to a trial date outside the 180-day limit. The cour
• Sanders v. Moore
  156 F. Supp. 2d 1301· M.D. Fla.· 2001-08-14 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of John Barrett's statements to his wife, Paula Barrett, violated the Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because the statements were not made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• MacK v. Singletary
  142 F. Supp. 2d 1369· S.D. Fla.· 2001-01-03 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to substitute counsel or the motion for continuance, and that the petitioner's other claims lacked merit.
• State v. Reese
  773 So. 2d 655· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-12-20
  The court held that the trial court erred in ordering the release of a sexually violent predator based on a misconstruction of the Jimmy Ryce Act's time limitations for trial commencement.
• Addison v. Forest Serv. of the U.S. Dep't of Agric.
  M.D. Fla.· 2000-07-17
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for permanent injunctive relief was moot because the Forest Service adopted a new policy that complied with the preliminary injunction, and there was no reasonable expectation the violation would recur.
• Designated pursuant to Art. IV
  Del.· 2000-03-17 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The Court declined to grant an immediate limited remand for an evidentiary hearing on allegations of judicial bias due to political ambition. Instead, the Court ordered that briefing on these issues be integrated into the existing appellate schedule, requiring supplemental briefs
• Breedlove v. Moore
  74 F. Supp. 2d 1226· S.D. Fla.· 1999-09-08
  The court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies to the habeas petition, the petition is timely, and the state court's adjudication of the Brady violation claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
• Ehlert v. Singer
  959 F. Supp. 2d 382· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-19
  The court granted the motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and approve their selection of co-lead and liaison counsel, finding the designated plaintiffs met the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rule 23.
• Ingram v. Lauri Anne Ingram
  701 So. 2d 429· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-11-14 ·via Right To Confront Evidence
  The court held that it was fundamentally unfair to rely on proffered testimony without giving the opposing party an opportunity to confront or rebut it.
• United States v. Bodie
  990 F. Supp. 1419· S.D. Fla.· 1997-11-03 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and severance under Rule 14 was not warranted, as potential prejudice could be cured by jury instructions and redactions.
• United States v. Des Marteau
  14 F.R.D. 235· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-26 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that defendants may depose certain Canadian witnesses under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15, but defendants will not be physically present at the depositions, attending instead via teleconference.
• Rhodes v. State
  638 So. 2d 920· Fla.· 1994-05-05 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Richard Rhodes appeals his death sentence imposed after a new sentencing proceeding following vacation of his original death sentence on penalty phase grounds. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death sentence while vacating a duplicate judgment of conviction entered by the ne
• Feller v. State
  637 So. 2d 911· Fla.· 1994-04-21
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed Feller's sexual battery conviction on three independent grounds: the trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact regarding videotaped child testimony, admission of expert testimony vouching for the child victim's credibility, and adm
• Lewis v. State
  626 So. 2d 1073· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-11-12
  Ricky Lamar Lewis appealed his convictions for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault on a child under 12. The court reversed and remanded due to insufficient evidence supporting the trial court's decision to allow the child victim to testify via closed-circuit television
• Hernandez v. State
  626 So. 2d 1349· Fla.· 1993-11-10 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court may admit child witness testimony via one-way closed-circuit television in non-abuse cases when there is a case-specific finding of severe emotional harm and sufficient indicia of reliability, without violating the defendant's Six
• Rodriguez v. State
  624 So. 2d 380· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-09-22 ·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Cruz-Hernandez
  821 F. Supp. 1336· S.D. Fla.· 1993-09-10
  The Eleventh Circuit held that a Border Patrol agent's observations of a vehicle and its driver, including nervousness and appearance, did not constitute probable cause for a stop, even if they provided reasonable suspicion.
• Callins v. Collins
  998 F.2d 269· 5th Cir.· 1993-08-06
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no error in the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Wright v. Dallman
  999 F.2d 174· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not require a trial court to allow cross-examination on speculative inferences of bias, especially when other evidence supports the conviction and the limitation does not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• Lowery v. Collins
  996 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The court held that the defendant did not waive his Sixth Amendment rights by not calling the child complainant to testify, and the admission of the videotaped interview was harmful error.
• Quinn v. Neal
  998 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-13
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding abuse petitions and the defendant's ongoing relationship with the witness, as no sufficient nexus was shown to demonstrate bias or motive to lie.
• United States v. Enriquez-Estrada
  999 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-07
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's redacted confession, substituting a neutral term for the defendant's name, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if it is not powerfully incriminating on its face. The court also held that drug ledgers are admissible as cir
• United States v. Occhipinti
  998 F.2d 791· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-06
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the speedy trial rights were not violated, evidence was properly admitted despite jurisdictional and warrant challenges, and sentencing calculations were correct.
• United States v. Kermit Oris Bear Stops
  997 F.2d 451· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-06 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding a prior sexual assault on the victim by other individuals was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, requiring reversal of the conviction on that count. However, convictions on other count
• United States v. Morgan
  997 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-02
  The court held that officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on corroborated informant information and his suspicious behavior, and that his co-conspirator's statements were admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
• Williams v. Lord
  996 F.2d 1481· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-01
  The exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior violent acts, of which the defendant had no knowledge, does not violate the constitutional right to present a defense when the evidence has limited probative value and the state has legitimate interests in excluding it.
• United States v. Restrepo
  994 F.2d 173· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-17
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony, packaging, and financial transactions, was sufficient for a jury to find the substance was cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the Confrontation Clause
• United States v. Wagner
  996 F.2d 906· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-17
  The court affirmed the validity of the guilty pleas and sentences for John and Michael Wagner, but vacated Scott Sine's sentence and remanded for a specific finding on cocaine attribution, while dismissing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
• United States v. Miller
  995 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-16
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and a prior guilty plea to a substantive offense did not bar a subsequent conspiracy conviction.
• Vernell Carson v. Collins
  993 F.2d 461· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-08
  The court held that the admission of a videotaped statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the victim testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination, and that the admission of the videotape and witness remarks did not render the trial fundamentally unfa
• United States v. Bellucci
  995 F.2d 157· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-04
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of making false statements to a financial institution and that the FDIC certificate of insurance was admissible and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Carty
  993 F.2d 1005· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-28 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized under a warrant, nor in restricting cross-examination, nor in admitting 'other act' evidence at trial.
• Pemberton v. Collins
  991 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-27
  A federal court on habeas review may consider a confession admitted at trial, even if a state appellate court later held it inadmissible under state law, provided its admission did not violate federal constitutional standards.
• United States v. Gatto
  995 F.2d 449· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-18 ·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court held that evidence of a defendant's courtroom conduct, including intimidating looks at a witness and the presence of an associate, is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show consciousness of guilt, and prosecutorial comments on such evidence are permiss
• United States v. Farhad Bakhtiar and Anthony McDonald
  994 F.2d 970· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-17
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the loss of certain evidence did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial, and the admission of taped statements was proper or harmless error.
• Lewine v. State
  619 So. 2d 334· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-05-14
  Arnold Lewine appeals his conviction for a lewd act or assault in the presence of a child, challenging the trial court's restriction on his pro se right to cross-examine the child victim directly. The court held that requiring Lewine to pose questions through standby counsel rath
• United States v. Drayton Curry
  993 F.2d 43· 4th Cir.· 1993-05-07 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a defendant has an unqualified right to inspect jury lists to prepare a challenge to jury selection procedures, but that a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment on a collateral matter does not require striking their testimony.
• United States v. Bryant
  991 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-06 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, sufficient evidence for conviction, and no clear error in sentencing guideline calculations.
• United States v. Blackburn
  992 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-22 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to define reasonable doubt or in admitting certain testimony and exhibits, but erred in admitting a specific lab report under the business records exception.
• Feller v. State
  617 So. 2d 1091· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-04-16 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Joseph Feller appeals his conviction for sexual battery on a child, challenging the trial court's order allowing the child victim to testify by videotape under Florida Statute § 92.53. The appellate court affirms the conviction but certifies two questions of great public importan
• United States v. Vasquez
  985 F.2d 491· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-15 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court denied the petition for rehearing because it attempted to introduce new facts and reargue points already considered, failing to meet the standards for such petitions.
• United States v. Mandel
  991 F.2d 55· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-14
  The court held that the district court erred in departing upward for psychological harm without sufficient evidence that the harm was not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
• United States v. Sanchez
  988 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-09 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the photographic identification was not impermissibly suggestive, the district court did not err in denying disclosure of the confidential informant, the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause did not require defense counsel's presence at an in camera interview,
• United States v. Clark
  989 F.2d 1490· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-25
  The court held that identification testimony was admissible and that Confrontation Clause and severance issues did not warrant reversal.
• Stachniak v. Hayes
  989 F.2d 914· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or the denial of a new trial motion.
• United States v. Buckhalter
  986 F.2d 875· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-11 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, suppressing identification, removing a juror, or calculating sentences, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
• United States v. Thomas
  987 F.2d 1298· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-09 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that admitting a witness's prior inconsistent grand jury testimony as substantive evidence did not violate due process, nor did admitting the sawed-off shotgun or instructing the jury on constructive possession.
• United States v. Dempsey Buford Merida
  985 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-05
  The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to vacate convictions, finding that the admission of challenged exhibits did not constitute plain error and that appellate counsel's failure to raise the issue did not render assistance constitutionally inadequate.
• Exline v. Gunter
  985 F.2d 487· 10th Cir.· 1993-02-03
  The federal court held that the state trial court's failure to conduct an in camera review of social service records violated the defendant's due process rights, as established in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie.