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

• Smith v. State
  457 So. 2d 1380· Fla.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 60×
  Frank Smith, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850 and filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his trial and appellate counsel's effectiveness. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the deni
• United States v. Jarabek
  726 F.2d 889· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the tape recordings were admissible because the investigation was a joint federal-state effort and federal law governed admissibility, not the stricter state wiretap statute.
• United States v. Hartley E. Greenleaf, Jr.
  692 F.2d 182· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for mail fraud and RICO were not clearly and grossly unjust, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or in its jury instructions. Consecutive sentences for RICO and mail fraud were permissible.
• United States v. Louderman
  576 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 60×
  The court held that obtaining confidential information through misrepresentation constitutes wire fraud, and the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The use of a pen register and the search warrants were also deemed lawful.
• United States v. Zane
  495 F.2d 683· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that inconsistent jury verdicts, even if rendered sequentially, are permissible and do not require reversal, as consistency is not required in jury deliberations.
• United States v. Jorgenson
  451 F.2d 516· 10th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting repetitive cross-examination, that the defendant's absence from certain conferences did not constitute grounds for mistrial, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Baker
  419 F.2d 83· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-15 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the admission of guns, the refusal to disclose a witness's employer due to threats, and the exclusion of stale mental health records were proper. It also affirmed conspiracy convictions and challenges to identification procedures.
• Barton v. United States
  263 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1959-02-26 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for severance, as the co-defendant's confession, which heavily implicated the moving defendant, could not be effectively limited by jury instructions.
• Hutchins v. Wainwright
  715 F.2d 512· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the prosecutor's introduction of out-of-court statements from an unidentified informant, and reliance on those statements in closing argument, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• United States v. Shafter W. Summers
  598 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-09 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish an effect on interstate commerce for Hobbs Act jurisdiction and that the limitations on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Salazar
  485 F.2d 1272· 2d Cir.· 1973-09-19 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for participating in a heroin conspiracy was not undermined by evidence of transactions he was unaware of, nor by alleged procedural errors in trial preparation, summation, or sentencing.
• Powell v. Zuckert
  366 F.2d 634· D.C. Cir.· 1966-07-28 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a discharged employee's delay in filing suit due to poverty, when coupled with diligent efforts to secure counsel, may be excused under the doctrine of laches, and that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure cannot be used in discharge proceedin
• United States v. Constantine T. Kepreos
  759 F.2d 961· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the exclusion of expert testimony regarding appellant's psychological state was not an abuse of discretion, the exclusion of a codefendant's guilty plea was harmless error, the denial of immunity to a witness was not a due process violation, and the prosecutor
• United States v. Gonzalez
  559 F.2d 1271· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 58×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The grand jury testimony of a previously convicted coconspirator who refuses to testify at trial is inadmissible hearsay, as it does not qualify as a statement against interest or possess equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
• United States v. Mulligan
  488 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-09 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the searches and seizures were lawful and the admissions of the defendants were properly admitted at trial.
• United States v. Fischer
  381 F.2d 509· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-24 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a third petition to vacate sentences, raising issues already adjudicated in a prior petition from which no appeal was taken, was subject to dismissal as frivolous and res judicata. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply at the s
• Greene v. Louis Wainwright & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Fla.
  634 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 57×
  The court held that prohibiting cross-examination into a key witness's potential bias or mental instability violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. McCOWN
  711 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.
• State v. Basiliere
  353 So. 2d 820· Fla.· 1977-10-20 ·cited 56×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  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
• United States v. Thomas
  463 F.2d 1061· 7th Cir.· 1972-05-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding a newspaper article was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. de Georgia
  420 F.2d 889· 9th Cir.· 1969-12-11 ·cited 56×
  The court concurred with the majority opinion but emphasized the importance of the trustworthiness of business records, especially those generated by electronic data processing.
• McKISSICK v. United States
  379 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or in its handling of the prosecutor's closing argument, the case must be remanded to determine if the defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights regarding double jeopardy, co
• Golliher v. United States
  362 F.2d 594· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the arrests, detentions, interrogations, seizure of clothing, witness viewings, joint trial, and admission of prior testimony were all lawful and did not violate the appellants' constitutional rights.
• United States v. Fortna
  796 F.2d 724· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions for Fortna, Sharer, and Reo, but remanded Harnage's appeal for a supplemental hearing regarding his attorney-client privilege claim.
• Reiger v. Christensen
  789 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court must review the state trial record to determine if ineffective assistance of counsel claims and the admission of witness testimony regarding a "long police record" violated due process. Other claims were affirmed.
• United States v. GAY
  567 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance based on a co-defendant's conditional offer to provide exculpatory testimony.
• United States v. Gernie
  252 F.2d 664· 2d Cir.· 1958-02-13 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the entrapment defense was a question for the jury, the defense waived any claim regarding the government's failure to produce informant Max Berner, and the government had the right to call Benjamin Harel
• United States v. Sellers
  906 F.2d 597· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that the defendants' convictions and sentences were proper.
• Flor Lopez v. Vanderwater
  620 F.2d 1229· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 53×
  A judge is not immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for non-judicial acts performed under color of state law that violate constitutional rights, even if the acts are otherwise judicial in nature. A non-judge may be liable for conspiracy if they knowingly participate in a
• United States v. Thompson
  493 F.2d 305· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-12 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the proceedings were free from prejudicial error, affirming the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana.
• United States v. Galloway
  976 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 52×
  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.
• Mendoza v. Miller
  779 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 52×
  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.
• 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. Griffin
  434 F.2d 978· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-27 ·cited 52×
  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×
  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×
  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×
  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.
• 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×
  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×
  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×
  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. Alvarez
  860 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 50×
  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×
  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×
  The court held that the denial of Seifert's severance motion was prejudicial error, requiring reversal, but affirmed Ehrlich's conviction.
• United States v. D'Amato
  493 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 50×
  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×
  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 v. Jackson
  448 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 50×
  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×
• Stanley v. United States
  245 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1957-05-22 ·cited 50×
  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.