Right To Confront Evidence

14 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Woody
  567 F.2d 1353· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the odor of marijuana provides probable cause for a vehicle search, but that summaries of undisclosed presentence report information must be sufficiently specific to allow defendants to rebut potentially erroneous material.
• In re Kitchen
  706 F.2d 1266· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred by not allowing the defendant to be heard and make an offer of proof before adjudging him in contempt.
• Harvard v. State
  375 So. 2d 833· Fla.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 22×
  William Lanay Harvard was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for shooting his ex-wife Ann Bovard in the neck with a shotgun. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence after reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, a
• Francis v. Coughlin
  891 F.2d 43· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an inmate has a clearly established constitutional right to a hearing before an unbiased officer and to be informed of and comment on adverse evidence, but not a right to be present during the testimony of witnesses.
• Sher v. Stoughton
  666 F.2d 791· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that anonymous telephone communications with jurors, while presumptively prejudicial, were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial given the trial judge's prompt inquiry, curative instructions, and the nature of the information conveyed.
• Battaglia v. United States
  390 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court cannot base its decision on undisclosed information from a presentence report, as this violates due process and the right to confront evidence.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Dinsio
  468 F.2d 1392· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-15 ·cited 10×
• Funchess v. State
  367 So. 2d 1007· Fla.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 9×
• United States ex rel. DE Graw v. Toon
  151 F.2d 778· 2d Cir.· 1945-11-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the relator's reinduction into the Army was illegal because he was not accorded his right to confront damaging evidence against him and the Local Board failed to properly report facts to the Appeal Board.
• Adams v. State
  355 So. 2d 1205· Fla.· 1978-03-02 ·cited 6×
  Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Gardner v. Florida decision requiring disclosure of information relied upon in capital sentencing, James Adams applied for relief claiming the trial judge improperly considered undisclosed information. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the appl
• United States ex rel. Frank Orlando v. Dist. Dir. OF Immigr. & Naturalization
  222 F.2d 537· 2d Cir.· 1955-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the appellant was denied due process by not being shown adverse evidence and given an opportunity to rebut it.
• United States v. Lanny Ray Leeper
  964 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that an inadvertent oral instruction mentioning a prior manslaughter conviction was harmless error, and that the defendant's prior convictions and current offense qualified him for career offender sentencing.
• Ingram v. Lauri Anne Ingram
  701 So. 2d 429· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-11-14
  The court held that it was fundamentally unfair to rely on proffered testimony without giving the opposing party an opportunity to confront or rebut it.