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. Dent
  984 F.2d 1453· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that grand jury testimony, even if trustworthy, cannot be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 804(b)(5)) if it is specifically covered by another exception (Rule 804(b)(1)) and fails to meet that exception's requirements.
• Heath Williams v. State
  611 So. 2d 1337· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-01-13
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's confession, even after a statutory amendment to hearsay exceptions, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Feldewerth
  982 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-05
  The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded because the procedure below violated the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Burge
  990 F.2d 244· 6th Cir.· 1992-12-28
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in limiting the scope of cross-examination of a government agent, refusing to instruct the jury on certain defenses, or in finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
• Siegfriedt v. Fair
  982 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-23
  The admission of a witness's tape-recorded testimony from a probable cause hearing, where the witness testified under an adopted name, did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and later impeach him once his
• United States v. Dean
  980 F.2d 1286· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-04
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements as non-hearsay was an abuse of discretion because the statements were irrelevant to any issue at trial and violated the Confrontation Clause. The error was not harmless.
• United States v. Piche
  981 F.2d 706· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-25
  The court affirmed Lloyd Piche's conviction but vacated his sentence due to insufficient findings on restitution ability and improper guideline departure.
• United States v. Allie
  978 F.2d 1401· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-25
  The court held that the district court did not err in permitting the government to depose material witnesses under Fed.R.Crim.P. 15(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3144, nor in admitting the depositions and hearsay evidence at trial, nor in providing a supplemental jury instruction.
• Prewitt v. Goeke
  978 F.2d 1073· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-04 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violation regarding ex parte jury communications, state suppression of evidence, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Truman Aaron Grooms
  978 F.2d 425· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-28
  The court held that the admission of hearsay statements under the residual exception was not an abuse of discretion, the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause was satisfied, and the exclusion of impeachment evidence was proper.
• United States v. Hale
  977 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-15
  The court held that the district court properly applied sentence enhancements for obstruction of justice and leadership role, and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• Pallay v. Pallay
  605 So. 2d 582· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-09-30
  In this post-dissolution custody modification case, the trial court modified custody and visitation arrangements after finding that the mother had fabricated sexual abuse allegations against the father to prevent visitation, and that she had coached the children to make false sta
• United States v. Pina
  974 F.2d 1241· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that amending an indictment mid-trial to correct a typographical error was a substantive change that prejudiced the defendant, justifying dismissal with prejudice, and that the denial of recross-examination was not an abuse of discretion.
• Brigette Karin Johnson v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  971 F.2d 340· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court should not deport an alien based on inadmissible evidence submitted by their attorney for a different purpose.
• Hopkins v. State
  608 So. 2d 33· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-07-23
  John Hopkins was convicted of three counts of sexual battery on a child under 12 and one count of lewd and lascivious handling. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's use of closed-circuit television for the child victim's testimony and admission of her out-of-court statement
• United States v. Carter
  973 F.2d 1509· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and the ex parte communication with the jury, while constitutional error, was harmless.
• Hollins v. Dep't of Corr.
  969 F.2d 606· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-01
  The court held that the denial of a writ of habeas corpus was proper because the trial court's alleged errors did not violate constitutional rights or render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• Trisha L. West v. Grand Cnty.
  967 F.2d 362· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-05
  The court held that the plaintiff received adequate pretermination and post-termination due process, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Eurie Joseph
  964 F.2d 1380· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-01
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting the victim's second statement by relying on corroborating evidence, but the error was harmless due to substantial overlap with a prior admissible statement and other corroborating evidence.
• United States v. Castro-Romero
  964 F.2d 942· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing a peremptory challenge against a black juror, permitting leading questions of a minor victim, or increasing the offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines for victim custody.
• Thomas v. Gunter
  962 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-28
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions of child victims did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the procedures met the standards set forth in Maryland v. Craig.
• United States v. Eccleston
  961 F.2d 955· D.C. Cir.· 1992-04-24
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial when inadmissible hearsay testimony, which directly implicated the defendant in drug distribution, was presented to the jury, and the government's case was otherwise weak.
• United States v. Summerfield
  961 F.2d 784· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed the judgment, but one judge questioned the reasoning regarding the use of testimony.
• Porter v. A.L. Lockhart
  961 F.2d 782· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that the state courts did not err in their conclusions regarding the identification procedures, arrest, and sufficiency of evidence.
• Cary R. Ortberg v. Russel Moody
  961 F.2d 135· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·via Right To Confrontation
  A request for a Certificate of Probable Cause can serve as a notice of appeal, and a nolo contendere plea bars challenges to pre-plea constitutional violations not related to the plea's voluntariness.
• Wood v. State OF Alaska
  957 F.2d 1544· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-28
  Excluding evidence of M.G.'s prior sexual conduct did not violate Wood's Sixth Amendment rights because the evidence was not relevant or its probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect and other legitimate interests.
• Fischer v. Powers
  957 F.2d 609· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-26
  The admission of a certified laboratory report into evidence, even without the direct testimony of the analyst, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause when the state provides a mechanism for the defendant to subpoena the analyst.
• United States v. Collin Taplin, Jr.
  954 F.2d 1256· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-29
  The court held that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness whose prior testimony was admitted, and therefore, admitting the testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle
  954 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of a witness's prior sworn deposition testimony, as the prosecution made a good-faith effort to secure the witness's attendance and she was properly declared unavailable.
• United States v. Owens
  953 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a curative instruction to disregard hearsay statements was sufficient to cure any prejudice or confrontation clause violation, given the extensive evidence against the defendant and the minor nature of the disputed statements.
• United States v. Grady A. Thomas
  953 F.2d 107· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-19
  The court held that excluding the defendant and his attorney from an in camera hearing to determine the waiver of attorney-client privilege violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Pavlik v. United States
  951 F.2d 220· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the administrative hearing did not violate due process and that substantial evidence supported the finding of a violation of the Halibut Act.
• Blackmon v. State
  588 So. 2d 662· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-11-06 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to cross-examine the victim on certain matters by failing to obtain a ruling on the admissibility of proffered testimony.
• Dwon A. Kimble v. State
  588 So. 2d 312· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-11-05
  Dwon Kimble was convicted of armed burglary, armed robbery, and attempted kidnapping based primarily on in-court identifications. The appellate court reversed because the trial court erred in excluding evidence about suggestive out-of-court identification procedures after the def
• Millard Dale Jennings v. Maynard
  946 F.2d 1502· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-16
  The court held that the admission of an unavailable witness's out-of-court statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statement was reliable and fell within the statement-against-interest exception to hearsay.
• United States v. Esacove
  943 F.2d 3· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-11
  Statements made by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of a conspiracy, including concealment efforts, are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and do not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Franks
  939 F.2d 600· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-24
  The court held that Federal Express records, microfilmed and maintained by the company, were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, even though the custodian lacked personal knowledge of their creation, and their admission did not violate conf
• Bienbenito Fernandez v. Leonardo
  931 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for his procedural default in failing to object to the admission of his co-defendant's statement at trial, and therefore, habeas relief was improperly granted.
• Mills v. Armontrout
  926 F.2d 773· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-27
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States v. Gatto
  924 F.2d 491· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-23
  The court held that the district court erred in suppressing eyewitness testimony, finding it sufficiently reliable despite potential suggestiveness in police procedures and hypnosis.
• Gregory v. State
  573 So. 2d 73· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-12-28 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Willie Gregory was retried for aggravated assault after his first conviction was overturned due to lack of counsel. At retrial, the state introduced the victim's testimony from the first trial (when Gregory was unrepresented) without the victim appearing in person, depriving Greg
• Willhoite v. Vasquez
  921 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while the prosecutor's secret deal was objectionable, there was no reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the trial's outcome.
• Hardy v. Wigginton
  922 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-29
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that a child witness must testify in the physical presence of the trier of fact constitutes a 'new rule' that is not retroactively applicable on federal habeas review.
• United States v. Ras McCREARY and Otis Meeks
  901 F.2d 1028· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-22
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior statement, even if erroneous under hearsay rules or the confrontation clause, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Dugan
  902 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-15
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and sufficient evidence existed to support the mail fraud convictions.
• United States v. Hill
  901 F.2d 880· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-24
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession that implicates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and such error is not harmless if the evidence against the defendant is not overwhelming.
• United States v. James "Jimmie" Earl Aron
  904 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court's detention order was supported by the proceedings below and affirmed the order. The court found that the defendant's willful violation of release conditions was sufficient to support the conclusion that he would again violate court orders.
• Fricke v. State
  561 So. 2d 597· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-04-03 ·via Right To Confrontation
  William Fricke appeals his conviction for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault of a six-year-old child. The court reverses and remands because the trial court violated Fricke's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by allowing the child victim to testify via closed-cir
• Holmes v. State
  557 So. 2d 933· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-03-08 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Ernesto Holmes appeals his conviction for sexual battery, contending that the trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by withholding the victim's current address and place of employment. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that unde
• Eliassaint Mathieu v. State
  552 So. 2d 1157· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-11-07 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Eliassaint Mathieu appealed his conviction for armed robbery, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after testimony inadvertently revealed that non-testifying eyewitnesses had identified him by name, violating his Sixth Amendment right of confronta