Right To Confrontation

1,397 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 183 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Peters v. State
  919 So. 2d 624· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-01-24 ·cited 27×
  Peters challenges the admission of a laboratory drug test report at his community control revocation hearing, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington. The court holds that Crawford does not apply to community control revocation
• United States v. Carl E. Banks & Arthester McCruiston
  687 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the admissibility of prior convictions for appeal by not obtaining a definitive ruling from the trial court. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the voir dire or denying sev
• United States v. Ocampo
  650 F.2d 421· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-02 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony identifying a defendant as a known drug trafficker was reversible error, but upheld the convictions of other defendants based on sufficient evidence and proper procedures.
• United States v. Martinez
  616 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 27×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of evidence, and the failure to provide an interpreter did not warrant reversal.
• Julian v. Desue, IV
  908 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-07-25 ·cited 26×
  Desue challenges his armed robbery conviction and life sentence as a prison releasee reoffender, arguing that using Department of Corrections records to establish his release date violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington. The First District
• Curtis v. State
  876 So. 2d 13· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-05-18 ·cited 26×
  Juan Curtis was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery in the shooting death of Mary Ann Stephens during a robbery. The court reversed his convictions, holding that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by excluding a confession from Brento
• Long v. State
  610 So. 2d 1276· Fla.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 26×
  Robert Joe Long appeals his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Virginia Johnson. The Florida Supreme Court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce edited portions of a CBS videotaped interview withou
• United States v. Kelly
  892 F.2d 255· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 26×·via Face-To-Face Confrontation
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions of unavailable foreign witnesses, taken with defense counsel present and a phone line for consultation, did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court also held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction de
• United States v. Lynn
  856 F.2d 430· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly circumscribing cross-examination regarding a witness's polygraph examination and by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction, thereby impairing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Angelos Markopoulos
  848 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while some evidence was improperly admitted and jury instructions were flawed, these errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal of the conspiracy conviction.
• Leatrice Little v. Armontrout
  835 F.2d 1240· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to appoint an expert in hypnosis for an indigent defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
• Lacy v. Gardino
  791 F.2d 980· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that while a Sixth Amendment violation occurred, it was harmless error because the unmasked information was cumulative and did not contribute to the verdict.
• United States v. Accetturo
  783 F.2d 382· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Bail Reform Act is not facially unconstitutional for failing to contain a specific time limitation on pretrial detention.
• United States v. Leonicio Fernando Cruz
  765 F.2d 1020· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the English transcript of Spanish conversations was properly admitted as substantive evidence, and while the admission of hearsay statements was error, it was harmless due to sufficient other evidence.
• In re Kitchen
  706 F.2d 1266· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confront Evidence
  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.
• United States v. Arnott
  704 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination scope, admitting co-conspirator statements, or admitting weapons evidence, and that no fundamental rights were affected by the rulings.
• Emmett Eugene Cloud, Jr. v. Thomas
  627 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-10 ·cited 26×
  The Sixth Amendment does not grant a constitutional right to impeach a witness's general credibility with evidence of prior bad acts not resulting in a conviction.
• United States ex rel. George Sims v. Allyn Sielaff
  563 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-31 ·cited 26×
  A parolee's claim that a delay in their revocation hearing violates due process must be judged by the standards set forth in Barker v. Wingo, not by a presumption of prejudice based solely on the length of the delay.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  555 F.2d 308· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by independent surveillance, provided probable cause for Costano's arrest, and that the admission of Costano's statement against Gonzalez violated Bruton v. United States because it was not harmless error.
• United States v. Cavallaro
  553 F.2d 300· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove interstate kidnapping, that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, that the trial court did not err in limiting questioning about a witness's address, and that evidence of a subsequent crime was admissible.
• United States v. HAY
  527 F.2d 990· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial, that the admission of Swiss bank records and deposition testimony was harmless error due to his admissions, and that the evidence established a crime against the United States.
• Griffith v. Wyrick
  527 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 26×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A guilty plea induced by a belief of a specific sentence, especially when combined with claims of coercion, is involuntary if that belief is not unreasonable and not properly addressed by the court.
• United States v. Crane
  499 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1974-07-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a tandem trial procedure, where a single jury hears evidence against codefendants first and then hears evidence against the appellant, violates the appellant's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
• United States v. Dunham Concrete Prods., Inc.
  475 F.2d 1241· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the repealed statute, 15 U.S.C.A. § 32, did not grant immunity for testimony in private antitrust suits, as immunity could only be conferred by the government. The court also found no reversible error in the grand jury proceedings or trial.
• United States v. Sherman
  474 F.2d 303· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-01 ·cited 26×
  A guilty plea is valid even if the defendant is not explicitly advised of the right against self-incrimination, as long as the record shows the plea was knowing and voluntary.
• United States v. Wilkerson
  469 F.2d 963· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if technically hearsay, was not reversible error when the declarant testified and was cross-examined, and that convictions for possession and transfer of counterfeit currency were permissible for distinct tra
• Birzon v. King
  469 F.2d 1241· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the parole condition itself was constitutional, the revocation hearing was fundamentally unfair and denied due process by relying solely on an unverified state parole report without allowing confrontation or disclosure of informants.
• United States v. DeCARLO
  458 F.2d 358· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-04 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the victim's cause of death and in failing to instruct the jury on its relevance.
• United States v. Robinson
  449 F.2d 925· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellants received sufficient notice of the contempt charges and that the evidence supported their convictions for violating the preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Trudo
  449 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of redacted confessions in a joint trial did not violate the Bruton rule when the confessions, as presented to the jury, did not directly incriminate co-defendants.
• United States v. Anderson
  447 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, but the admission of tax assessor testimony regarding property values was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial for most counts. However, other evidence supported the convictions for Counts II and III.
• State v. R. E. F.
  251 So. 2d 672· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-08-17 ·cited 26×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court's dismissal of a rape indictment against a 16-year-old juvenile who had previously been adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for the same offense. The court holds that juvenile delinquency proceedings are civil in nature and do not b
• Walker R. Wade v. United States
  441 F.2d 1046· D.C. Cir.· 1971-01-18 ·cited 26×
  The court should affirm the convictions because the defendant's absence was voluntary, or alternatively, no prejudice resulted from his absence.
• Beard v. State
  104 So. 2d 680· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-07-24 ·cited 26×
  Two defendants were convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The court affirmed Jernigan's conviction but reversed Beard's conviction, holding that the trial court erred in denying Beard the right to closing argument, and that Beard's cross-examination of his co-defen
• Curtis v. Rives
  123 F.2d 936· D.C. Cir.· 1941-12-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of denial of confrontation and compulsory process rights were not supported by the record, and thus the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Jenkins v. State
  803 So. 2d 783· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-11-30 ·cited 25×
  Jenkins appeals his civil commitment under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the admission of extensive hearsay evidence that denied him due process and his right to confront witnesses. The court reverses, holding that committing Jenkins largely on untested hearsay—including
• Purcell v. State
  735 So. 2d 579· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by refusing to permit defense counsel to impeach a key prosecution witness by showing bias.
• United States v. Hal Long
  866 F.2d 402· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Long and Kasch, finding that Long's consent to search and pre-arrest statements were voluntary, and that venue was proper for Kasch's possession charge under an aiding and abetting theory.
• Freeman v. Rideout
  808 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 25×
  The filing of unfounded charges against a prison inmate does not, per se, constitute a constitutional violation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provided that the inmate receives the constitutionally required due process protections at a subsequent disciplinary hearing.
• Miller v. A.A. Stagner and R.L. Pulley
  757 F.2d 988· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from an in camera juror disqualification hearing.
• United States v. Watson
  599 F.2d 1149· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the government had a sufficient prosecutorial interest in delaying the unsealing of an indictment to avoid tipping off other defendants, and that the defendant did not suffer substantial actual prejudice from this delay.
• United States v. Hernandez
  441 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while admitting post-arrest statements of co-conspirators was error, it was harmless in light of other evidence and testimony. The court also found no error in admitting background information from informants or in the jury charge.
• Jackson v. State
  127 So. 3d 447· Fla.· 2013-09-19 ·cited 24×
  Michael Jackson seeks postconviction relief and habeas corpus review after conviction for first-degree murder, robbery, and kidnapping of an elderly couple in 2005. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial of relief, holding that Jackson failed to demonstrate ineffective assi
• United States v. Kindred
  918 F.2d 485· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that admitting a urinalysis report through a probation officer's testimony does not violate the Sixth Amendment in a revocation hearing, and that revocation can be based on pre-modification violations if supported by evidence and mandated by statute.
• United States v. Fuller
  887 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, evidence admission, closing arguments, or sentencing.
• United States v. Gordon
  876 F.2d 1121· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed convictions for drug distribution and conspiracy, finding sufficient evidence, no Brady violation, no prejudicial closing arguments, and proper application of sentencing guidelines.
• Spivey v. State
  529 So. 2d 1088· Fla.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 24×
  Herbert Spivey, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and robbery in the contract killing of Crofton's husband. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the death penalty, holding that cross-examination regarding Spivey's post-arrest Miranda
• United States v. Manos
  848 F.2d 1427· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, denial of a continuance, or the prosecutor's closing argument.
• Dickson v. G.E. Sullivan
  849 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a deputy sheriff's statement to two jurors that the defendant had "done something like this before" created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, requiring reversal of the habeas corpus denial.
• United States v. Salim Fakhoury
  819 F.2d 1415· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the appellant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence for attempted arson and mail fraud, and that the admission of prior misconduct evidence and prosecutorial remarks did not deny a fair trial.