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

• Waverly Leroy Payne v. United States
  294 F.2d 723· D.C. Cir.· 1961-07-13 ·cited 53×
  Evidence seized during a lawful arrest and identification of the defendant by a witness in open court are admissible, even if the arrestee was detained longer than permitted by Rule 5(a) without being brought before a magistrate, provided no evidence obtained from interrogation d
• United States v. Galloway
  976 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 52×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) is authorized by statute and does not violate constitutional rights, allowing consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing.
• United States v. Jewel
  947 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 52×
  The exclusionary rule should apply to sentencing, as allowing illegally seized evidence would significantly undermine the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Jefferson
  925 F.2d 1242· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the appellants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and thus had no Fourth Amendment claim, and that the erroneous admission of a pager bill was harmless error.
• United States v. Williams
  858 F.2d 1218· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Williams of conspiracy to obstruct justice and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying severance motions. However, convictions for both conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy
• United States v. Alicia Davis (85-1153)
  809 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in conducting an in camera hearing regarding peremptory challenges, as defendants' presence was not constitutionally required and their counsel had ample opportunity to present arguments. The court also affirmed the district cour
• United States v. Judd Carver Eisenberg
  807 F.2d 1446· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the initial stop of the vehicle was a valid investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion, and probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. The admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if potentially erroneous, was harmless error.
• Mendoza v. Miller
  779 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 52×·via Right To Confrontation
  The majority holds that the petitioner was not denied due process because the record contained sufficient indicia of informant reliability, the petitioner waived his right to exculpatory material, and the magistrate properly handled in camera review.
• United States v. Joseph F. "Joey" Astling
  733 F.2d 1446· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial vindictiveness, continuances, marijuana classification, jury voir dire, severance, admission of extrinsic evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Katsougrakis
  715 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 52×
  Convictions under the Explosive Control Act are reversed because uncontained gasoline is not an 'explosive' as defined by the Act, but conspiracy and mail fraud convictions are affirmed if supported by independent evidence.
• Bisaccia v. The Attorney Gen. of the State of N.J.
  623 F.2d 307· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that using a co-conspirator's guilty plea as evidence of a defendant's guilt violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Garner
  574 F.2d 1141· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 52×
• United States ex rel. Craig S. Owen v. Hon. Daniel J. McMANN
  435 F.2d 813· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that when jurors introduce specific, prejudicial extra-record facts about a defendant into deliberations, it violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even if the statements come from fellow jurors rather than court officials.
• United States v. Griffin
  434 F.2d 978· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-27 ·cited 52×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that conflicting testimony on entrapment is a jury question, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements and prior convictions was proper.
• United States v. Walton
  411 F.2d 283· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 52×
  The court, reconsidering its prior decision, should grant rehearing and reverse the conviction due to the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding entrapment conversations.
• United States v. Burnell Robinson
  406 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-10 ·cited 52×·via Right To Confrontation
  References to 'mug shots' during trial did not constitute reversible error because the trial court provided a comprehensive limiting instruction to the jury, and the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive.
• Moroni Lopez v. State
  888 So. 2d 693· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-11-17 ·cited 51×·via Right To Confrontation
  Moroni Lopez was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon based partly on hearsay testimony from a witness (Hector Ruiz) identifying him as the person with the gun. The court held that while the statement qualified as an excited utterance under the hearsay exception
• United States v. Clarence Samuel Robinson (80-5479)
  707 F.2d 872· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 51×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing the jury to use government-prepared transcripts of inaudible tape recordings, as this was prejudicial and an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Blakey
  607 F.2d 779· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the Hobbs Act applies to mixed legal-illegal businesses and that the admission of recorded statements did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights or the rule against hearsay.
• United States v. Genser
  582 F.2d 292· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-29 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not err in admitting the IRS agent's testimony or in refusing to suppress evidence obtained via administrative summonses.
• McCHESNEY v. Henderson
  482 F.2d 1101· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 51×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A state court guilty plea is valid if intelligently and voluntarily made, even without express articulation of all constitutional rights, and post-conviction evidence can cure a silent trial record.
• United States v. Polisi
  416 F.2d 573· 2d Cir.· 1969-09-25 ·cited 51×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the denial of a new trial was error as to Anthony Polisi due to the government's suppression of evidence, but affirmed the denial as to Salvatore Polisi.
• Holland v. State
  773 So. 2d 1065· Fla.· 2000-10-05 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  Albert Holland was convicted of murdering Pompano Beach police officer Scott Winters during an armed robbery and attempted sexual battery. On direct appeal of his death sentence, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death penalty, rejecting twenty-two claims of
• Harris v. Vasquez
  913 F.2d 606· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of Robert Alton Harris's third federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no error in the denial without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Fortier
  911 F.2d 100· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 50×
  Consideration of disputed cocaine amount at sentencing violated the Confrontation Clause due to unreliable hearsay evidence.
• United States v. Alvarez
  860 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 50×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient for a jury to conclude that the defendant organized or managed certain individuals under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute.
• United States v. White
  794 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the district court's rulings on severance, evidentiary matters, jury instructions, or prosecutorial remarks.
• United States v. Seifert
  648 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the denial of Seifert's severance motion was prejudicial error, requiring reversal, but affirmed Ehrlich's conviction.
• Chipman v. Mercer
  628 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-04 ·cited 50×
  The denial of cross-examination to explore a witness's potential bias against a group to which the defendant belonged violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. DiGREGORIO
  605 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1979-08-14 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidence was properly admitted, the Hobbs Act jurisdiction was established, and the trial was not prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct or the handling of multiple conspiracies.
• United States v. Wright
  588 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for Hobbs Act extortion and conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that the government was not obligated to grant immunity to a defense witness.
• Jiminez v. Estelle
  557 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a federal habeas court must determine if there was 'cause' for the petitioner's failure to make a contemporaneous objection on the proper ground and if that failure resulted in actual prejudice, to allow review of a claim barred by state procedural rules.
• Stone v. Morris
  546 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-10 ·cited 50×
  A district court has the discretion to compel an incarcerated party's presence at trial via writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, and a prison memorandum may be admissible under the business records exception if a proper foundation is laid.
• United States v. Herndon
  536 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-06 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the subpoena of bank records, and the destruction of a mash sample did not deprive him of a fair trial under the Due Process Clause.
• United States v. D'Amato
  493 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or juror issues.
• United States v. Carson
  464 F.2d 424· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the jury charge on conspiracy to commit bribery was not misleading, and the appellant's conduct constituted an official act within the meaning of the bribery statute. The court also rejected the appellant's claims regarding duplicity in the conspiracy count an
• United States ex rel. Cleveland Reed v. Anderson
  461 F.2d 739· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-11 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a pre-trial photographic display, even without counsel, does not automatically violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• United States v. White
  454 F.2d 435· 7th Cir.· 1971-11-22 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination, excluding certain photographs, or in its handling of witness interviews, and that the defendant waived the issue of a preliminary hearing and the voluntariness of an informer's cons
• United States v. Jackson
  448 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' due process rights were not violated by an inadvertent pretrial confrontation with witnesses, nor by a lawful investigatory stop and seizure of evidence, and affirmed the convictions.
• Tarlton v. Clark
  441 F.2d 384· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-05 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Lipowitz
  407 F.2d 597· 3d Cir.· 1969-02-20 ·cited 50×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the admission of bait bills seized from an automobile, the identification procedures used, and the denial of a severance motion were not errors that violated the defendant's constitutional rights.
• Stanley v. United States
  245 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1957-05-22 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and violating the Federal Train Wreck Act, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Abimel Caraballo
  595 F.3d 1214· 11th Cir.· 2010-01-27 ·cited 49×
  Abimel Caraballo was convicted of alien smuggling and related offenses after law enforcement discovered eleven undocumented aliens hidden in the cabin of a fishing boat he owned. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his convictions and 46-month sentence, rejecting his challenges to the
• United States v. Lopez
  898 F.2d 1505· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 49×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, that the district court did not err in denying severance or motions to suppress, that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless, and that sentencing was proper.
• McCRAE v. W.T. Hankins
  720 F.2d 863· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that while prison regulations created a liberty interest in avoiding extended lockdown, the procedures afforded were constitutionally adequate. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the property claim, finding that an intentional deprivation of property is n
• G. E. G. v. State
  417 So. 2d 975· Fla.· 1982-07-15 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that in controlled substance possession cases, the substance must be introduced into evidence if available, but a defendant who fails to object to its non-introduction waives the right to challenge the error on appeal. The Court rejected both absolu
• United States v. Hall
  653 F.2d 1002· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-20 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the admission of DEA agent testimony regarding general investigative procedures was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, warranting reversal of the convictions.
• Jones v. State
  360 So. 2d 1293· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-07-18 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  Victor Jones was convicted of manslaughter after being charged with first-degree murder for distributing heroin that caused the death of Kristi Lynn Stidham. On appeal, Jones challenged the admission of toxicological evidence despite unavailable original materials, the admission
• Polizzi v. United States
  550 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that defendants' claims regarding in camera juror interrogations and indictment validity were either previously decided, procedurally barred, or lacked merit. The court affirmed the denial of their motions to vacate sentences.
• Hoover v. Beto
  467 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-09 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the introduction of an unsworn confession without the declarant being subject to cross-examination denied the defendant a fair trial, and this error was not harmless.