Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses

21 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• State v. Basiliere
  353 So. 2d 820· Fla.· 1977-10-20 ·cited 56×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered certified questions regarding whether deposition testimony of an unavailable witness (who died before trial) can be used as evidence in a criminal trial when the defendant was not present during the deposition. The court held that such use viola
• Monserrate v. State
  232 So. 2d 444· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-03-03 ·cited 33×
  Raul Monserrate was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin after a trial in which the state relied on testimony from a detective who claimed the defendant sold heroin to a confidential informant. The trial court refused to disclose the informant's identity despite the defenda
• United States v. Lawson
  653 F.2d 299· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony based on hearsay did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights because he had adequate access to the underlying information for cross-examination, and lay testimony on sanity was properly admitted under the Federal Rule
• Love v. State
  971 So. 2d 280· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-01-09 ·cited 31×
  Robert Love appeals five convictions arising from a traffic stop in Pahokee, claiming the police used the stop as retaliation for his public criticism of their department. The appellate court reversed due to fundamental error in jury instructions and prejudicial evidentiary rulin
• Aikens v. Lash
  547 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 24×
  Prison officials are not required to provide written reasons for denying an inmate's request to cross-examine adverse witnesses in disciplinary transfer hearings.
• United States ex rel. Birchel Leonard Carson v. Taylor
  540 F.2d 1156· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the parolee's due process rights were violated by the failure to provide written notice of all claimed violations and by the reliance on undisclosed documentary evidence.
• Smith v. State
  404 So. 2d 167· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-09-29 ·cited 16×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by unduly restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's generalized racial bias when such questioning is probative of potential bias affecting credibility, and the court's failure to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties is r
• Gerson Merrill Kartman v. Parratt
  535 F.2d 450· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 16×
  Procedural errors in probation revocation hearings were not prejudicial, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is not warranted.
• United States v. POE
  713 F.2d 579· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 10×
  A retrial is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause when a mistrial is declared at the defendants' request, unless the mistrial was caused by prosecutorial misconduct intended to subvert double jeopardy protections.
• United States v. Hughes Anderson Bagley
  837 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 8×
  A constitutionally infirm felony conviction, later vacated, cannot serve as the predicate for subsequent firearms convictions under Ninth Circuit law preceding the Supreme Court's Lewis decision.
• Treadwell v. Schweiker
  698 F.2d 137· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the ALJ's failure to enforce administrative subpoenas, stemming from a misunderstanding of his authority, deprived the claimant of due process by preventing her from confronting adverse hearsay evidence.
• United States v. Dorta
  783 F.2d 1179· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 6×
  A defendant cannot simultaneously deny committing the crime and assert the entrapment defense, and the trial court did not err in refusing to allow cross-examination about a witness's maximum potential sentence when that information was already ascertainable.
• Brock D. Mardis v. State
  122 So. 3d 950· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-10-09 ·cited 4×
  Mardis appeals his sexual battery conviction, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence that the victim had financial motivations to fabricate the charges. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that evidence of the victim's a
• White v. White
  925 F.2d 287· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a parolee's admission of some parole violations does not constitute a waiver of the right to confront adverse witnesses regarding other contested violations, and that barring such confrontation at an institutional revocation hearing violates due process.
• Wescott v. State
  72 So. 3d 304· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-10-19 ·cited 2×
  Justin Wescott appealed his convictions for grand theft, burglary, and providing a false name to law enforcement. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on all counts, finding two fundamental errors: conviction on an uncharged crime varia
• Wright v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  948 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court should have reviewed the Parole Commission's decision for abuse of discretion, and Wright's due process rights were violated.
• United States v. Hedgcorth
  873 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the napalm firebombs constructed by the defendants qualified as 'destructive devices' under federal law, and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
• Mozingo v. Craven
  475 F.2d 1254· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prior parole revocation, even if followed by subsequent revocations, could have collateral consequences and thus was not moot, requiring a due process hearing.
• M.L.K. v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-08-20
  A trial court violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses by removing him from the courtroom during witness testimony without permitting him to observe and hear the testimony or maintain direct communication with counsel. Remote testimony by a witne
• United States v. Gatto
  995 F.2d 449· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-18
  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