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

• Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm
  715 F.2d 1050· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 37×
  The admission of a child victim's hearsay statements, made under the stress of excitement from a startling event, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if they possess sufficient indicia of reliability, even if the child is unavailable to testify.
• United States v. DOE
  525 F.2d 878· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the post-trial in camera proceeding with a confidential informant was proper and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Buttler v. State
  238 So. 2d 313· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-08-04 ·cited 37×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Appellant Buttler was convicted by jury of unlawful sale of marijuana and appealed on three grounds: constitutional classification of marijuana as a narcotic, denial of speedy trial, and failure to disclose witness names. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error on any
• Schaffer v. State
  769 So. 2d 496· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-10-18 ·cited 36×
  Charles Schaffer was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to deliver based partly on hearsay testimony from officers regarding statements made by a confidential informant who did not testify at trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new tria
• United States v. Winford Earl Brown
  899 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his prior state misdemeanor convictions were constitutionally invalid, and thus the district court did not err in using them for sentencing.
• Correll v. Dugger
  558 So. 2d 422· Fla.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 36×
  Correll challenges his conviction for first-degree murder of four persons and death sentence through habeas corpus and a motion for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida Supreme Court rejects all of Correll's claims, finding them either wit
• Moore v. Zant
  885 F.2d 1497· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 36×
• United States v. Patricia "Patty" Cree
  778 F.2d 474· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay statements made by a child victim under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24) and that the defendant waived her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by failing to call the child witness.
• Maugeri v. State
  460 So. 2d 975· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-12-18 ·cited 36×
  Maugeri was convicted of first-degree murder and burglary. On appeal, the court upheld the admissibility of hearsay testimony from the victim's girlfriend that the victim told her he had stolen cocaine (not cash) from Maugeri's airplane, finding it admissible as a statement again
• United States v. Mohammad Ali Bastanipour
  697 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government's attempted pretrial appeal of a non-appealable order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction, and various failures to preserve evidence or disclose information did not violate the defendant's rights or warrant a mistrial or new trial.
• United States v. Brown
  692 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on all essential elements of the substantive offense in Count Eight, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial on that count. However, the court affirmed the convictions on the remaining
• United States v. Hughes A. Bagley
  641 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 36×
  The court should have remanded for a new trial due to extrinsic evidence potentially affecting the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Lutz
  621 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single fraudulent scheme, the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper, and any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Estremera
  531 F.2d 1103· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution, and the denial of a pretrial lineup was not reversible error.
• United States v. Infelice
  506 F.2d 1358· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting tape recordings, finding the informant credible, and denying polygraph examinations, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Burke
  495 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that various evidentiary and procedural rulings by the trial court did not deny them a fair trial.
• United States v. Millard Robert Beasley
  438 F.2d 1279· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), as the defendant's actions created an apparently dangerous situation and placed the teller in reasonable apprehension of harm, even if the device was ine
• Peters v. The United States
  408 F.2d 719· Ct. Cl.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the regulation allowed hearsay testimony, and it was unnecessary to fit within common law hearsay exceptions.
• Tanner v. United States
  401 F.2d 281· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• KAY v. United States
  255 F.2d 476· 4th Cir.· 1958-05-17 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of a blood analysis certificate and the jury instructions regarding statutory presumptions were proper.
• United States v. Derick Bennett
  928 F.2d 1548· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying a firearm possession enhancement to the sentence because the firearm was possessed seven months after the drug offense. The court affirmed the conviction and other sentencing aspects.
• United States v. Plotke
  725 F.2d 1303· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 35×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain convictions for substantive mail fraud counts and that procedural errors did not warrant reversal.
• The Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney
  391 So. 2d 262· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-11-26 ·cited 35×·via Confrontation And Cross-Examination
  The Everglades Club appealed an order compelling it to answer interrogatories in a mandamus proceeding brought by a member seeking reinstatement after expulsion. The court held that interrogatories seeking details about complaints against the member were not relevant to the issue
• United States v. Woody
  567 F.2d 1353· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 35×·via Right To Confront Evidence
  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.
• United States v. Ann (LNU) Decker and Larry J. Vice
  543 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that vicarious liability under Pinkerton v. United States is applicable to narcotics distribution conspiracies and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a juvenile adjudication for impeachment purposes.
• United States ex rel. William Stanbridge v. Zelker
  514 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district judge erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the Bruton rule, as the confessions of co-defendants interlocked and did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of the other habeas corpus claims.
• Denesiz Letroy Smith v. State
  880 So. 2d 730· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-05-28 ·cited 34×
  Denesiz Smith was convicted of manslaughter and shooting into an occupied vehicle based primarily on tape-recorded statements from three witnesses who recanted their trial testimony. The court reversed, holding the trial court erred in admitting the tape-recorded statements as su
• United States v. Lenfesty
  923 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, the exclusion of prior convictions for impeachment, the denial of severance motions, and the application of Sentencing Guidelines were proper, and any errors were harmless.
• United States v. MacHor
  879 F.2d 945· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of co-conspirator statements, the denial of a motion to substitute counsel, the refusal to exclude the case agent, or the limitation of cross-examination.
• Chandler v. State
  534 So. 2d 701· Fla.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 34×
  Jim Eric Chandler appeals his death sentences imposed on resentencing after his initial death sentences were vacated due to improper juror excusal. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death sentences, rejecting Chandler's constitutional challenges to the sentencing statute and
• United States v. Calle
  822 F.2d 1016· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the limitation on cross-examination of the government's witness was proper, the exclusion of the defense witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion and substantially prejudicial.
• United States v. Melchor DE LOS Santos
  810 F.2d 1326· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence or the motion to reveal the identity of the confidential informant, and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the in camera proceeding.
• United States v. Emerson Molt
  758 F.2d 1198· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that applying the stricter bail pending appeal standard under the Bail Reform Act of 1984 to crimes committed before its enactment does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
• United States v. MacCini
  721 F.2d 840· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the prosecutor's inappropriate remarks during rebuttal argument, while reprehensible, did not warrant reversal or dismissal due to curative jury instructions and overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also found no error in the limitations placed on cross-e
• Brown-Bey v. United States
  720 F.2d 467· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-01 ·cited 34×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the district court's dismissal of the appellant's claims was proper, as the Privacy Act claim failed because only agencies, not individuals, can be sued, and the other claims lacked merit or were not cognizable federal claims.
• United States v. Elorduy
  612 F.2d 986· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant's arguments regarding the Speedy Trial Act, Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, entrapment, and unlawful firearm possession lacked merit.
• Savina Home Indus., Inc. v. Sec'y OF Labor & Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  594 F.2d 1358· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the exclusionary rule is not retroactively applicable to pre-Barlow's OSHA inspections where the inspecting officer could not have known the search was unconstitutional, and that Savina's due process and Sixth Amendment claims lacked merit or standing.
• United States v. Rajeh Kazni
  576 F.2d 238· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the alleged hearsay evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt and that the record did not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
• United States v. Hansen
  569 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments for reversal were unpersuasive, affirming the trial court's judgment.
• United States v. Vinicio E. Ruiz-Estrella
  481 F.2d 723· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 34×
  The search was lawful because the appellant consented to it.
• United States v. Morales
  477 F.2d 1309· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial confession that inculpates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even with a limiting instruction, and can constitute plain error if not objected to at trial. The court als
• United States v. Rogers
  475 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that markings on money orders were sufficient to infer interstate movement and that compelling handwriting exemplars in specific forms did not violate constitutional rights. The court also found that a witness's Fifth Amendment refusals did not unduly prejudice the
• United States v. Edwards
  469 F.2d 1362· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the pistols were admissible under Terry v. Ohio, but the armed robbery convictions from trial three must be reversed due to an improper jury poll and the use of recorded testimony from unavailable witnesses.
• United States v. Moore
  446 F.2d 448· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the government's efforts to make the informer available were reasonable and that the proof sufficiently established the substance transferred was marihuana.
• United States v. Carden
  428 F.2d 1116· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request for the presentence report, as the defendant was given an opportunity to address any alleged inaccuracies.
• Barnaby Ashford Bloomer v. United States
  409 F.2d 869· 9th Cir.· 1969-04-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the search was a permissible border search not requiring probable cause, and the government was not required to disclose the informant's identity.
• United States v. Carella
  411 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for mistrial and severance, nor in refusing to provide a full transcript of a prior trial to an indigent defendant.
• United States v. Carminati
  247 F.2d 640· 2d Cir.· 1957-08-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove participation in the conspiracy and that various evidentiary rulings and trial procedures did not constitute reversible error.
• Nixon v. State
  857 So. 2d 172· Fla.· 2003-07-10 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  Joe Elton Nixon, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of postconviction relief based on his trial counsel's admission of his guilt without his explicit consent. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that silent acquiescence to a counsel's str
• Moore v. Kemp
  824 F.2d 847· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 33×
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the petition.