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

• Tippett v. State OF Md.
  436 F.2d 1153· 4th Cir.· 1971-01-04 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of petitions, holding that the Maryland Defective Delinquents Act, as applied, does not violate petitioners' constitutional rights.
• United States v. Johnson
  426 F.2d 1112· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-06 ·cited 42×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was established over the hospital land, the Love instruction was inapplicable, Miranda warnings were substantially complied with, severance was properly denied, and convictions for conspiracy and burglary were valid.
• Farese v. United States
  428 F.2d 178· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-20 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the discovery of unintroduced cash by the jury during deliberations constituted reversible error because it could not be affirmatively shown that the error was not prejudicial.
• Harris v. United States
  371 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the trial court improperly limited cross-examination regarding an informer's payments, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
• Fletcher v. United States
  332 F.2d 724· D.C. Cir.· 1964-04-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the circumstances surrounding a witness's refusal to testify, particularly when the refusal was anticipated and the questions depicted the entire offense, unfairly prejudiced the defendant and affected his substantial rights.
• Hamer v. United States
  259 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1958-08-26 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial judge's voir dire was adequate, the use of a jury book by the prosecution did not constitute error per se, and the arrest and search were based on probable cause.
• Matthews v. United States
  217 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1954-12-09 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the admission of the sugar reports, which were required by statute but not made in the regular course of the business for its own purposes, constituted prejudicial error because they were hearsay and did not fall under any recognized exception.
• State v. Contreras
  979 So. 2d 896· Fla.· 2008-03-13 ·cited 41×·via Face-To-Face Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a child sexual abuse victim's testimonial videotaped statement to a Child Protection Team coordinator violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington because the defendant lacked a prior opportu
• United States v. Davis
  767 F.2d 1025· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 41×
  The court held that Swiss bank records were admissible despite a claimed treaty violation because the defendant lacked standing to raise the issue and had ample opportunity to challenge authenticity. The court also held that the district court properly ordered the defendant to ce
• United States v. Wolfson
  573 F.2d 216· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-18 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by providing insufficient jury instructions regarding the relevance of yacht sales prices and by unduly limiting cross-examination concerning insurance amounts.
• United States v. Anthony
  565 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-16 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing jurors to take notes, in its order of proof, in denying a mistrial for a potentially withheld Jencks Act statement, or in denying severance motions. The court also found sufficient evidence to support co
• Nelson v. State
  148 Fla. 338· Fla.· 1941-10-24 ·cited 41×
  Ben Nelson was convicted of manslaughter in the murder of Leroy Heath and sentenced to ten years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to the trial court's deferral of a pretrial conference with state witnesses, its jury instruction en
• Corona v. State
  64 So. 3d 1232· Fla.· 2011-06-09 ·cited 40×
  Sergio Corona was convicted of capital sexual battery on his eleven-year-old daughter based primarily on hearsay statements made by the victim to police, which were introduced through officer testimony. The Florida Supreme Court held that a pretrial discovery deposition does not
• United States v. Paris
  827 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court should have excluded the out-of-court statements unless the government granted use immunity to the declarant, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• United States v. Tamer Trad Mourad
  729 F.2d 195· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were largely affirmed, but Mourad's case was remanded for reconsideration of his sentence due to the merger of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise convictions.
• United States v. Valdez
  722 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of a law enforcement officer's post-hypnotic identification testimony was improper and prejudicial, especially when the identification was of a suspect known to the witness and was uncorroborated.
• United States v. Hernandez
  608 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying pre-trial disclosure of an informant's address, denying a continuance, excluding the public during the informant's testimony, or admitting an edited co-defendant statement, and properly rejected a duress jury instruction.
• United States v. Hickey
  596 F.2d 1082· 1st Cir.· 1979-04-19 ·cited 40×
  The court held that suppressed evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights cannot be used to impeach a defendant's statements elicited on cross-examination if the defendant did not testify about the subject matter on direct examination. The court also held that a defendant d
• United States v. Poulack
  556 F.2d 83· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow the defendant to be represented by his preferred counsel, balancing the defendant's right to counsel against the need for an orderly and speedy trial. The court also held that the s
• United States v. Stassi
  544 F.2d 579· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various claims of procedural error, including issues related to a deported co-conspirator, speedy trial, admissibility of evidence, jury findings, and Brady material, were without
• Clutchette v. Procunier
  510 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-21 ·cited 40×·via Confrontation And Cross-Examination
• Phillips v. Neil
  452 F.2d 337· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-07 ·cited 40×
  The admission of psychiatric reports, written by unidentified authors and not subject to cross-examination, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even if admissible under a state hearsay exception.
• United States v. Dioguardi
  428 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-27 ·cited 40×
• Maguire v. United States
  396 F.2d 327· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction under the Dyer Act was valid, affirming the lower court's decisions regarding speedy trial, access to information, assistance of counsel, venue, search and seizure, and Miranda warnings.
• Major A. Eberhart, Jr. v. United States
  262 F.2d 421· 9th Cir.· 1958-12-29 ·cited 40×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that claims of illegal search and seizure, and the government's failure to produce a witness, were frivolous and should have been raised on direct appeal.
• United States v. Telesforo Ray Gomez
  529 F.2d 412· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 39×
  The court adheres to the result of the main opinion but expresses concern over the admission of hearsay evidence.
• Hutchins v. State
  286 So. 2d 244· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-11-06 ·cited 39×
  The court affirmed a conviction for unlawful possession of a narcotic drug but addressed the admissibility of a video-taped deposition of an unavailable witness.
• G.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  791 So. 2d 17· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-03-30 ·cited 38×
  Parents appealed a dependency order finding their two daughters dependent on the state based on alleged sexual abuse by the father and mental abuse by the mother. The appellate court affirmed the finding of sexual abuse but reversed the mental abuse finding against the mother, ho
• Lawrence v. State
  691 So. 2d 1068· Fla.· 1997-03-13 ·cited 38×
  Michael Alan Lawrence appeals his death sentence imposed after remand from a prior appeal that vacated his original sentence due to evidentiary errors. The Florida Supreme Court affirms Lawrence's death sentence, finding that the trial court properly considered aggravating and mi
• United States v. DE LA Vega
  913 F.2d 861· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all appellants but vacated the sentences of Betancourt and De La Vega, remanding for re-sentencing.
• United States v. Bigelow
  914 F.2d 966· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all defendants but vacated their sentences, remanding for resentencing consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found the 'ostrich instruction' appropriate for Lima, Bigelow's hearsay objections meritless, Vaughan's due process ch
• United States v. Byrd
  898 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 38×·via Confrontation And Cross-Examination
  The court held that conduct charged in dismissed counts, even if denied by the defendant, can be considered 'relevant conduct' for sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines if it is part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction, and the evidenc
• United States v. Dempsey
  733 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 38×
  A conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846 does not require the indictment to allege an overt act, and the court affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Nunzio Provenzano
  688 F.2d 194· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendants' RICO convictions were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding severance, grand jury procedures, and the denial of psychiatric examinations for witnesses.
• United States v. Teodoro Ariza-Ibarra
  605 F.2d 1216· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a non-testifying informant's reliability and past identifications constituted reversible error, violating the defendants' right to confrontation.
• United States v. Adams
  566 F.2d 962· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 38×
• United States v. Bazzano
  570 F.2d 1120· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 38×
  The court suggests that federal appellate courts should adopt a rule requiring trial judges to state the reasons for their sentences, using supervisory power.
• United States v. McMANUS
  560 F.2d 747· 6th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule was properly applied, probable cause existed for the search, and the informant's identity was not required to be disclosed.
• United States v. Dewayne Lee Ratcliffe
  550 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, though later inadmissible, did not taint the convictions given ample independent evidence, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment.
• United States v. Clark
  480 F.2d 1249· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting hearsay testimony cured by cross-examination, refusing severance, or in its jury instructions, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Brumley
  466 F.2d 911· 10th Cir.· 1972-08-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the warrantless searches of the automobile were lawful based on consent and investigative stop principles, and that the indictment did not require dismissal due to the waiver of a preliminary hearing. Furthermore, the court found no denial of a fair trial base
• Conn v. The United States
  376 F.2d 878· Ct. Cl.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff's reduction-in-grade and undesirable discharge were invalid due to procedural irregularities and noncompliance with military regulations.
• Ware v. United States
  376 F.2d 717· 7th Cir.· 1967-05-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a defendant's absence during jury communication, while a procedural impropriety, does not automatically require reversal if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Kolod v. United States
  371 F.2d 983· 10th Cir.· 1967-02-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellants' proffer of FBI surveillance evidence, their motion for severance, or their requested jury instruction.
• D'Ercole v. United States
  361 F.2d 211· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appellant's claims do not warrant vacating his conviction, as they either were previously decided on appeal or are procedurally barred.
• Easley v. Hunter
  209 F.2d 483· 10th Cir.· 1953-12-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that civil courts will not review military court-martial decisions if the military tribunals have fully and fairly considered the constitutional questions presented.
• Dear Check Quong v. United States
  160 F.2d 251· D.C. Cir.· 1947-02-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the statutory presumption regarding possession of narcotics was constitutional. The search of the informer was also deemed sufficient.
• Arthur v. State
  818 So. 2d 589· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-26 ·cited 37×
  Arthur was charged with driving after his license was revoked as a habitual traffic offender. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that the State need only prove the Department designated him a habitual offender and revoked his license—not the specific prior offenses underl
• State v. Ford
  626 So. 2d 1338· Fla.· 1993-11-10 ·cited 37×·via Face-To-Face Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that while a trial court may employ procedures not expressly authorized by law to protect child witnesses from trauma, the videotaped testimony of a four-year-old witness in a homicide case violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation righ
• Walton v. State
  481 So. 2d 1197· Fla.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 37×
  Jason Walton was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing because Walton was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront codefendants Cooper