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

• Darrick A. Rogers v. Norris W. McMACKIN
  884 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-28
  The admission of a nontestifying co-defendant's confession in a bench trial does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the judge is capable of compartmentalizing the evidence and not using it against the defendant.
• Stidum v. Trickey
  881 F.2d 582· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-09
  The court held that the admission of the victim's statements under the excited utterance exception did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the defendant's counsel's failure to object was not ineffective assistance.
• Childress v. State
  543 So. 2d 413· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-05-17
  The court held that Florida Statute § 90.803(23) applies only to sexual child abuse cases, not non-sexual child abuse cases, and admitting hearsay under this statute in a non-sexual abuse case was error.
• United States v. Durham
  868 F.2d 1010· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-02
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence during cross-examination, the introduction of a copy of a threatening letter, and the restriction of cross-examination of a witness were proper and did not violate the defendant's rights.
• Giraldo-Rincon v. Dugger
  707 F. Supp. 504· M.D. Fla.· 1989-02-24 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court's failure to inquire into the petitioner's ability to pay for and need for an interpreter, and subsequent denial of the request, violated his constitutional rights to due process and confrontation.
• Hopkinson v. Shillinger
  866 F.2d 1185· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-23
  The dissenting judge would hold that the prosecutor's argument violated Caldwell v. Mississippi, diminishing the jury's sense of responsibility, and that a strict standard of review requires vacating the death sentence.
• United States v. Norbert E. Stelten
  867 F.2d 453· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Statements made by a third party on a tape recording are admissible if they are necessary to make the defendant's own admissions intelligible, even if the third party's statements themselves would otherwise be hearsay.
• Vidal v. Sullivan
  863 F.2d 2· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-06
  The admission of a witness's prior statement, even if inconsistent, does not violate the Confrontation Clause or deprive a defendant of a fair trial when used to clarify inconsistencies.
• United States v. Nelson
  852 F.2d 706· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the district court unreasonably limited cross-examination regarding the pendency of a grand jury investigation, requiring reversal of obstruction convictions. However, the conspiracy convictions were affirmed.
• United States ex rel. Levester Bell & Sherman Gibson v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  847 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-20
  The use of a deceased victim's preliminary hearing testimony at trial does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the testimony bears adequate "indicia of reliability," even if cross-examination was somewhat limited.
• United States v. Alton Campbell
  845 F.2d 782· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-29
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in replacing a juror, limiting cross-examination, or admitting testimony under the co-conspirator exception, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Jones v. Baer
  848 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-29 ·via Right To Confrontation
• Pool v. Dowdle
  834 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-15
  Excluding expert testimony on police identification procedures was constitutionally permissible, but excluding evidence and cross-examination regarding a witness's reprimand violated the Confrontation Clause.
• O'Reilly v. State
  516 So. 2d 106· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-12-09 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Conviction reversed because trial court improperly excluded defense evidence of bias against the state's principal witness, violating the defendant's right to impeach credibility.
• Rodwell v. Fair
  834 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-03 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment claims are barred by adequate and independent state grounds due to procedural default.
• Cuellar v. Tex. Emp. Comm'n & Larco Leasing, Inc.
  825 F.2d 930· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff may have alleged sufficient facts to ground a constitutional claim for deprivation of due process.
• Bret Edmund Jano v. State
  510 So. 2d 615· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-06-24
  Bret Jano was convicted of sexually battering his 2½-year-old daughter based primarily on hearsay statements admitted under the spontaneous statement and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, f
• Mann v. Dugger
  817 F.2d 1471· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the jury was not misled regarding its advisory role in sentencing and that certain claims regarding a prior conviction were procedurally barred.
• Wernert v. ARN
  819 F.2d 613· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-09 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The dissenting judge believes the appellant adequately invoked her right to counsel, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion.
• Brazell Haynes v. State
  502 So. 2d 507· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-02-16 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Brazell Haynes appeals his cocaine possession conviction, challenging the admission of a police officer's testimony about statements made by a confidential informant. The court agreed that the informant's statements constituted inadmissible hearsay and that their admission was no
• Glendening v. State
  503 So. 2d 335· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-01-14
  Appellant Glendening was convicted of sexual battery on a child and challenged the admission of out-of-court statements made by his 3½-year-old daughter describing the abuse. The court upheld the conviction, finding that Florida's newly enacted hearsay exception for child abuse v
• Anderson v. United States
  802 F.2d 1056· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding a collateral matter does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Owens v. Foltz
  797 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the identification procedures used were not impermissibly suggestive and did not violate due process, and other claims of error did not rise to constitutional harm.
• Johnson v. State
  490 So. 2d 1365· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-07-10 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying post-conviction relief without allowing the appellant to meaningfully participate in the hearing.
• Nelson v. Thieret
  793 F.2d 146· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the trial court's limitation on cross-examination, and that convictions for both rape and aggravated kidnapping were permissible under Illinois law.
• Renzi v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, IND., & Attorney Gen., State of Conn.
  792 F.2d 311· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea to second-degree murder was valid, despite claims of inadequate advisement of rights and factual basis.
• United States v. Caputo
  791 F.2d 37· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-22
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Inadi eliminates the requirement to show unavailability for admitting coconspirator statements. The court also found the statements possessed adequate indicia of reliability.
• Fuller v. State
  485 So. 2d 35· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-03-19 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in conducting an in camera hearing without the defendant's presence and in issuing a protective order without sufficient predicate.
• Wells v. State
  477 So. 2d 26· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-10-15
  The court reversed an attempted second-degree murder conviction because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding witness statements, which was not harmless error despite the witness's presence at trial.
• United States ex rel. Frank Carlos Colon v. DeROBERTIS
  774 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-04
  The admission of a codefendant's statement, which differed critically from the defendant's own confession on key facts, was not harmless error under the Confrontation Clause.
• Lavon Morris and Mary Kirkland v. Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty.
  477 So. 2d 643· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-10-02 ·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Simmons
  773 F.2d 1455· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-30
  The admission of ATF forms and Agent Parker's testimony as hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 803(24) was improper because trustworthiness and the unavailability of more probative evidence were not established.
• Milo A. Rose v. State
  472 So. 2d 1155· Fla.· 1985-05-16 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Milo Rose was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for beating Robert Richardson with a concrete block multiple times in front of witnesses. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Rose's challenges to the pretrial identi
• Creekmore v. Dist. Court OF the Eighth Jud. Dist. OF the State OF Mont.
  745 F.2d 1236· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant was not denied his confrontation right when a witness had a memory lapse on cross-examination regarding a specific statement, as the witness testified fully on direct and was extensively cross-examined.
• Marrero v. City of Hialeah
  334 F.2d 506· S.D. Fla.· 1984-03-08
  The court held that the City was not liable under § 1983 because the plaintiffs failed to prove a custom or policy, and that the prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity as his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.
• Hines v. State
  444 So. 2d 1178· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-02-15 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred by summarily denying the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions refuting the allegations.
• Cullinane v. Sec'y OF the Dep't OF Health & Human Servs. OF the United States
  728 F.2d 137· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-15 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that an Administrative Law Judge has an affirmative duty to ensure pro se claimants receive full and fair hearings, including the right to confront potentially biased witnesses.
• Oviatt v. State
  440 So. 2d 646· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-11-17 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Kathy Ruth Oviatt was convicted of attempted first-degree murder of her eight-year-old daughter. On appeal, she challenged a pretrial order in limine that prohibited defense counsel from telling the child witness before trial that her mother might go to jail as a result of her te
• United States ex rel. Clifford Knights v. Wolff
  713 F.2d 240· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·via Right To Confrontation
  A habeas corpus petitioner is barred from raising constitutional claims in federal court if they were procedurally defaulted in state court, absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice.
• United States v. Carroll
  710 F.2d 164· 4th Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntary, the tracking dog evidence was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Pena v. State
  432 So. 2d 715· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-06-07 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to require the state to disclose the confidential informant's whereabouts after the informant's identity was revealed, and that the use of an edited transcript of a recorded conversation was permissible under certain condition
• United States v. Troupe
  702 F.2d 145· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-15 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior arrests was proper and any error regarding a witness's prior felony conviction was harmless. The limitation on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights.
• Baliza v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  709 F.2d 1231· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The government's introduction of an unauthenticated hearsay affidavit, without sufficient effort to produce the affiant for cross-examination, deprived the alien of his statutory right to confront witnesses.
• Steele v. Taylor
  697 F.2d 128· 6th Cir.· 1982-12-30
• United States v. Peeper
  685 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-25
  The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to object to the admission of taped recordings, as his attorney made a tactical decision to allow their introduction.
• James v. Louie L. Wainwright
  680 F.2d 102· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-06
  The use of a deceased eyewitness's preliminary hearing testimony transcript at trial was constitutionally permissible.
• Palmieri v. State
  411 So. 2d 985· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-03-30
  William Palmieri was convicted of a misdemeanor based on deposition testimony of a witness the State claimed was unavailable. The appellate court quashed the conviction, holding that the State failed to make a sufficient showing of the witness's unavailability under Florida crimi
• Freeman Leroy Bell v. Harrison
  670 F.2d 656· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-09
  The court held that Tennessee's rape shield statute, T.C.A. § 40-2445, is constitutional on its face and as applied, and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• D. D. v. Honorable Bill White
  650 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a federal district court must dismiss a mixed petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, without prejudice due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust available state remedies.
• United States v. Greer
  643 F.2d 280· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a trial judge's cautionary remarks to counsel about professional responsibility, even to an inexperienced attorney, do not impermissibly limit the right to cross-examination if cross-examination is otherwise permitted. The court also held that limiting questio