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

• United States v. Opager
  589 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the erroneous exclusion of business records and the government's failure to disclose an informant's whereabouts constituted reversible error.
• Sanford Thomas v. Wyrick
  535 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-28 ·cited 72×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in reversing the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the possibility of prejudice too speculative.
• United States v. Julita De Parias
  805 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 71×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction existed under the Hobbs Act, and that limitations on cross-examination, admission of photographs, evidence of flight, co-defendant statements, and compelled hair samples were not reversible error.
• United States v. Wellington
  754 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings on the indictment amendment, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, severance, sufficiency of evidence, Speedy Trial Act claims, juror questionnaire use, or other miscellaneous assi
• United States v. Singer
  660 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that while the admission of a ten-year-old prior conviction was an abuse of discretion, it was harmless error, and that the denial of motions for acquittal and severance was proper.
• Wiley v. Sowders
  647 F.2d 642· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 70×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A criminal defendant is deprived of effective assistance of counsel when their attorney admits the client's guilt to the jury without first obtaining the client's consent to this strategy.
• United States v. Amos P. Brown, Sr.
  548 F.2d 1194· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of IRS agent testimony, based on out-of-court statements from taxpayers and testifying from memory, constituted inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial "other crimes" evidence, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Barnes
  486 F.2d 776· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the government has a duty to make reasonable efforts to make a material informant witness available for interview or testimony if the informant participated in or witnessed the offense, and the defendant did not waive this right.
• United States v. Lloyd
  431 F.2d 160· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-28 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the Selective Service file into evidence and in quashing subpoenas for board members, as judicial review of classification is limited to the record and 'basis in fact'. The court also found no prejudice in the handling
• United States v. DeLUCA
  692 F.2d 1277· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 68×
  The court held that convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) must be reversed due to a prior definition of 'explosive' and that a multiple-object conspiracy conviction fails if any object is legally insufficient. However, other convictions were affirmed.
• Damon v. State
  397 So. 2d 1224· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-05-12 ·cited 68×
  Damon and Ladler were convicted of third-degree murder and burglary arising from the brutal 1976 murder of Wiley Swiney, where both defendants confessed to their respective roles. The defendants appealed challenging the joint trial, the admissibility of each other's confessions,
• United States v. Anderson
  509 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the warrantless search was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the use of an in camera hearing to protect informant identity was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Carmine Persico
  425 F.2d 1375· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying a mistrial due to publicity, limiting cross-examination of witnesses for safety reasons, admitting evidence of other crimes, or denying dismissal based on repeated retrials and delay.
• United States v. Danzey
  594 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 67×
  The court held that evidence of similar acts was admissible to prove identity and that a witness's identification testimony, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient to support a conviction.
• United States v. Fuentes
  563 F.2d 527· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 67×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that tape recordings were admissible, the informant's absence did not violate confrontation rights, and the trial court did not err in refusing a second competency examination.
• United States v. Lanese
  890 F.2d 1284· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed convictions for extortionate debt collection but remanded Lanese's sentence for specific findings on the number of participants and reversed Romano's sentence for resentencing due to an erroneous managerial enhancement.
• United States v. Kennedy
  714 F.2d 968· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the accumulation of evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of rape and felony murder, and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Raineri
  670 F.2d 702· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in pretrial or trial rulings, and that the evidence was sufficient.
• United States v. Cole
  449 F.2d 194· 8th Cir.· 1971-10-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, discovery denials were not an abuse of discretion, cross-examination was properly limited, and the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive.
• United States v. Germaine Haili
  443 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for smuggling, illegal transportation, and conspiracy to smuggle and transport marijuana were affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• State v. Madison Lee Reynolds
  238 So. 2d 598· Fla.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 66×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a prisoner incarcerated in another state is "in custody" within the meaning of Florida's Rule 1.850 post-conviction relief procedures and approved the District Court of Appeal's decision permitting such a prisoner to seek post-conviction relief
• United States v. Schor
  418 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-06 ·cited 66×
  The court held that while the appellant's conviction for bribery was based on sufficient evidence, the procedure used to answer jury questions in writing, outside the presence of the defendant and counsel, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Aiken
  373 F.2d 294· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-20 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony after a witness invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, nor in its jury instructions regarding illegal importation, reasonable doubt, or multiple conspiracies. Severance was not required for Cole, an
• Washington v. United States
  275 F.2d 687· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-11 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant was not entrapped and that he acted as a seller, not merely a purchasing agent.
• State v. Hollingsworth
  108 Fla. 607· Fla.· 1933-03-09 ·cited 66×
  The Florida Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of certiorari vacating the State Board of Medical Examiners' revocation of Dr. Tullidge's medical license, holding that the Board violated statutory procedural requirements by failing to properly serve the accused with charges,
• United States v. Leyva
  513 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the 35-year sentence for criminal contempt was excessive and an abuse of discretion, modifying it to 2 years, and affirmed the conviction.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Vidal Galdon Aquino
  378 F.2d 540· 3d Cir.· 1967-05-19 ·cited 65×
  The court held that a statement obtained from a suspect in custody, after he requested counsel and before he had an opportunity to consult one, is inadmissible under Escobedo. The court also held that prior testimony of an unavailable witness, subjected to cross-examination, is a
• United States v. Garcia-Rosa
  876 F.2d 209· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 64×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. However, it found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain extrinsic act evidence.
• Chavis v. Rowe
  643 F.2d 1281· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-11 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that an inmate stated a due process claim by alleging failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and inadequate written reasons for disciplinary action, and an Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment due to severe overcrowding.
• United States v. Eaglin
  571 F.2d 1069· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for harboring an escaped federal prisoner was supported by sufficient evidence and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not constitute plain error. The admission of certain hearsay statements was deemed harmless er
• State v. Hassberger
  350 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 64×
  Florida's highest court addressed whether a confidential informant's true identity can be withheld from a criminal defendant when the informant testifies at trial and the trial court finds the informant's safety is at risk. The court held that while a narrow 'personal safety' exc
• United States v. Journet
  544 F.2d 633· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 64×
  A guilty plea must be vacated if the district judge fails to explicitly inform the defendant of every element enumerated in Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P.
• United States v. Insana
  423 F.2d 1165· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-06 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the use of a co-defendant's prior grand jury testimony to impeach his in-court claim of memory loss did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights, nor did the delayed sentencing of accomplices violate due process.
• Thornton v. Honorable Howard F. Corcoran
  407 F.2d 695· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-03 ·cited 64×
  The court vacated prior orders and dissented from further discussion, finding no case or controversy and that prior actions lacked legal foundation.
• Farina v. State
  679 So. 2d 1151· Fla.· 1996-04-18 ·cited 63×
  Anthony Farina was convicted of first-degree murder in a fatal Taco Bell robbery and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and non-capital sentences but vacated the death sentence because the trial court erroneously excluded for cause a qualified p
• Cary Michael Lambrix v. State
  494 So. 2d 1143· Fla.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 63×
  Cary Lambrix was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant on February 5, 1983. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both convictions and death sentences, rejecting Lambrix's challenges to the jury qualification process, cross-exam
• United States v. Miller
  771 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the Sherman Act is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to price-fixing, the indictment was sufficient, the grand jury composition challenge failed, and Jencks Act violations were harmless errors.
• United States v. Andrews
  765 F.2d 1491· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 63×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the joinder of defendants was proper, the entrapment defense was insufficient as a matter of law, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or jury instruction ruling
• United States v. Hines
  696 F.2d 722· 10th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 63×
  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.
• 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.
• State v. Zamora
  534 So. 2d 864· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-06 ·cited 62×
  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×
  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. Pricepaul
  540 F.2d 417· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 62×
  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×
  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×
  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×
  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
• Kight v. Dugger
  574 So. 2d 1066· Fla.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 61×
  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. Marin
  669 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-18 ·cited 61×
  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×
  A new trial is required when there is a reasonable possibility that extrinsic prejudicial evidence seen by the jury could have affected the verdict.