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. Arbelaez
  719 F.2d 1453· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single conspiracy and that the admission of coconspirator statements and the denial of severance motions were proper.
• United States v. Hines
  696 F.2d 722· 10th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 63×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' convictions under federal conspiracy and racketeering laws were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions on various evidentiary and procedural challenges.
• United States v. Kendall
  665 F.2d 126· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 63×
  The court held that statements made by members of an association, even if they could not be charged as co-conspirators under the Hobbs Act, were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) as statements made in furtherance of a joint venture, provided the trial court m
• United States v. Riley
  657 F.2d 1377· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 63×
• Ulysses Adams, Jr. v. State
  376 So. 2d 47· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-10-25 ·cited 63×
  Adams appeals his extended sentence as a habitual felony offender under Florida's Section 775.084 statute. The court holds that while sentencing courts may rely on presentence investigation reports in extended sentence proceedings, contested hearsay in those reports concerning un
• Skinner v. Cardwell
  564 F.2d 1381· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied a fair trial, and therefore, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Sieling v. Eyman
  478 F.2d 211· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-23 ·cited 63×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A finding of competency to stand trial is insufficient to establish competency to waive constitutional rights by pleading guilty when the defendant's mental capacity has been put in issue.
• United States v. Wise
  976 F.2d 393· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 62×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentencing decision, finding that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation did not apply to sentencing proceedings and that the district court's reliance on hearsay evidence was permissible. The majority concluded t
• State v. Zamora
  534 So. 2d 864· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-06 ·cited 62×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida appealed a trial court order dismissing an information charging defendants with cocaine trafficking and conspiracy after the court ordered production of a confidential informant for in camera review, which the state could not locate. The appellate court reversed, holding
• Ozzie Batchelor v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  693 F.2d 859· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 62×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting his claims to the Oregon Supreme Court, federal review is permissible because no state remedies are currently available and the default was not a deliberate bypass. The court also affirmed
• United States v. Tavelman
  650 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, searches were lawful, and codefendants' statements were admissible. However, special parole terms imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 846 were improper.
• Rachel v. Bordenkircher
  590 F.2d 200· 6th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments on the petitioner's post-arrest silence and failure to testify at trial violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, warranting reversal of the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Pricepaul
  540 F.2d 417· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 62×·via Right To Confrontation
  A prior state conviction obtained in violation of Boykin v. Alabama, which requires an affirmative showing that a guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, cannot be used to establish a federal firearms violation.
• Ottomano v. United States
  468 F.2d 269· 1st Cir.· 1972-10-11 ·cited 62×·via Right To Confrontation
  An acquittal on a conspiracy charge does not preclude a conviction on a substantive offense if the acquittal was not based on a finding of fact essential to the substantive charge. A pending motion to vacate a sentence can create a risk of self-incrimination, preserving the Fifth
• United States v. Campbell
  426 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-29 ·cited 62×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant must be given full opportunity to present evidence of favors a government witness has received or expects to receive.
• Gibson v. State
  661 So. 2d 288· Fla.· 1995-10-05 ·cited 61×·via Right To Confrontation
  Brian Keith Gibson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of Lupita Luevano. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Gibson's convictions but vacated his death sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to enter writt
• Lewis v. State
  591 So. 2d 922· Fla.· 1991-12-05 ·cited 61×
  Lewis was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault and sexual activity with a child. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court violated Lewis's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual activity with a third par
• Kight v. Dugger
  574 So. 2d 1066· Fla.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 61×·via Right To Confrontation
  Charles Michael Kight, a death row inmate, appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate conviction and sentence and filed a habeas corpus petition, raising various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violations in jury instructions,
• United States v. Raimundo Crespo de Llano
  830 F.2d 1532· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 61×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that a trial court's failure to personally advise jointly represented defendants of their right to separate counsel under Rule 44(c) does not mandate reversal unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the lawyer's performance. The court also held tha
• United States v. Marin
  669 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-18 ·cited 61×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the stop of the defendants' car was supported by probable cause, the search of the car and the bag was lawful due to consent and lack of privacy expectation, and the redacted statement did not violate confrontation rights.
• United States v. Vasquez
  597 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 61×·via Right To Confrontation
  A new trial is required when there is a reasonable possibility that extrinsic prejudicial evidence seen by the jury could have affected the verdict.
• United States v. Cella
  568 F.2d 1266· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' argument because the government's evidence was derived from significant independent sources, and the defendants lacked standing to suppress certain evidence.
• Clutchette v. Procunier
  497 F.2d 809· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the majority's interpretation of Preiser v. Rodriguez regarding exhaustion of state remedies was too strict, and that the inmates' claims regarding the duration of their confinement necessitated exhaustion.
• Smith v. State
  457 So. 2d 1380· Fla.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 60×·via Right To Confrontation
  Frank Smith, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850 and filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his trial and appellate counsel's effectiveness. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the deni
• United States v. Gibbs
  739 F.2d 838· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the government should have an opportunity to prove witness unavailability at a hearing, rather than ordering a new trial.
• United States v. Jarabek
  726 F.2d 889· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-01 ·cited 60×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the tape recordings were admissible because the investigation was a joint federal-state effort and federal law governed admissibility, not the stricter state wiretap statute.
• United States v. Hartley E. Greenleaf, Jr.
  692 F.2d 182· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 60×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for mail fraud and RICO were not clearly and grossly unjust, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or in its jury instructions. Consecutive sentences for RICO and mail fraud were permissible.
• United States v. Louderman
  576 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 60×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that obtaining confidential information through misrepresentation constitutes wire fraud, and the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The use of a pen register and the search warrants were also deemed lawful.
• United States v. Arias-Diaz
  497 F.2d 165· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-18 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Zarzabal, reversing his conviction, but affirmed the convictions of the other five defendants.
• United States v. Zane
  495 F.2d 683· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 60×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that inconsistent jury verdicts, even if rendered sequentially, are permissible and do not require reversal, as consistency is not required in jury deliberations.
• United States v. Jorgenson
  451 F.2d 516· 10th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 60×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting repetitive cross-examination, that the defendant's absence from certain conferences did not constitute grounds for mistrial, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Wilcox
  450 F.2d 1131· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-09 ·cited 60×
  A witness's valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, even after testifying in a prior trial, does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights when their prior testimony is admitted.
• United States v. Baker
  419 F.2d 83· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-15 ·cited 60×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of guns, the refusal to disclose a witness's employer due to threats, and the exclusion of stale mental health records were proper. It also affirmed conspiracy convictions and challenges to identification procedures.
• Barton v. United States
  263 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1959-02-26 ·cited 60×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for severance, as the co-defendant's confession, which heavily implicated the moving defendant, could not be effectively limited by jury instructions.
• Hutchins v. Wainwright
  715 F.2d 512· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the prosecutor's introduction of out-of-court statements from an unidentified informant, and reliance on those statements in closing argument, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• United States v. Shafter W. Summers
  598 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-09 ·cited 59×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish an effect on interstate commerce for Hobbs Act jurisdiction and that the limitations on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Salazar
  485 F.2d 1272· 2d Cir.· 1973-09-19 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for participating in a heroin conspiracy was not undermined by evidence of transactions he was unaware of, nor by alleged procedural errors in trial preparation, summation, or sentencing.
• Powell v. Zuckert
  366 F.2d 634· D.C. Cir.· 1966-07-28 ·cited 59×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a discharged employee's delay in filing suit due to poverty, when coupled with diligent efforts to secure counsel, may be excused under the doctrine of laches, and that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure cannot be used in discharge proceedin
• United States v. Rocha
  916 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the denial of severance motions.
• United States v. Sutton
  794 F.2d 1415· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 58×
  The court held that dual representation did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that the plea agreement was not breached. The court also held that the investigatory stop was justified by founded suspicion and that severance was not warranted.
• United States v. Constantine T. Kepreos
  759 F.2d 961· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 58×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the exclusion of expert testimony regarding appellant's psychological state was not an abuse of discretion, the exclusion of a codefendant's guilty plea was harmless error, the denial of immunity to a witness was not a due process violation, and the prosecutor
• United States v. Bibbero
  749 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was an error that was not harmless, and the government's violation of the Jencks Act required reversal.
• United States v. Kabbaby
  672 F.2d 857· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the joinder of counts was proper under Rule 8 and the denial of severance under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion. The admission of certain testimony was deemed harmless error.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  559 F.2d 1271· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 58×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The grand jury testimony of a previously convicted coconspirator who refuses to testify at trial is inadmissible hearsay, as it does not qualify as a statement against interest or possess equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
• United States v. Klein
  522 F.2d 296· 1st Cir.· 1975-07-28 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the arrest of the defendant was supported by probable cause, the subsequent strip search was constitutional, and the admission of coconspirator statements under the exception to the hearsay rule was proper.
• Park v. H. T. (Tommy) Huff
  506 F.2d 849· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-20 ·cited 58×
  The majority opinion misunderstands the Confrontation Clause by allowing hearsay statements from unavailable witnesses to be admitted against the defendant.
• United States v. Marcelle Lacouture
  495 F.2d 1237· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 58×
• United States v. Mulligan
  488 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-09 ·cited 58×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the searches and seizures were lawful and the admissions of the defendants were properly admitted at trial.
• United States v. Teller
  412 F.2d 374· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-13 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the use of Kel-set devices and the seizure of evidence were constitutional, and that the defendants' other claims of error lacked merit.
• United States v. Guajardo-Melendez
  401 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1968-08-09 ·cited 58×
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's hearsay statement implicating the defendant, even with cautionary instructions, constituted reversible error, denying a fair trial. The court also found that a prosecutor's misstatement of evidence during closing arguments was prejudi