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

• Favre v. Henderson
  464 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 33×
• United States v. Aloisio
  440 F.2d 705· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and various procedural and constitutional challenges were without merit.
• Monserrate v. State
  232 So. 2d 444· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-03-03 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  Raul Monserrate was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin after a trial in which the state relied on testimony from a detective who claimed the defendant sold heroin to a confidential informant. The trial court refused to disclose the informant's identity despite the defenda
• Reed v. Beto
  343 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 33×
  The court held that while the petitioner had not technically exhausted state remedies, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had consistently ruled on the issue, and no intervening Supreme Court decision suggested a change, thus the state remedy was not effectively available.
• United States v. Harris
  908 F.2d 728· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that two juror remarks were ambiguous and did not necessitate further investigation into juror misconduct.
• United States v. Wheat
  813 F.2d 1399· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel due to potential conflicts of interest, even with a waiver, and that the defendant's absence from an ex parte conference with his attorney was harmless error.
• United States v. Tindle
  808 F.2d 319· 4th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery, continuances, witness testimony, or cross-examination limitations, but remanded for a Batson inquiry into potential jury exclusion.
• Puiatti v. State
  495 So. 2d 128· Fla.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 32×
  Carl Puiatti and Robert Glock appeal their convictions and death sentences for the kidnapping, robbery, and murder of a woman in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirms both convictions and sentences, rejecting arguments that the joint trial violated the confrontation clause a
• United States v. Silva
  781 F.2d 106· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the mail fraud convictions and that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Briscoe
  742 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the charges were not multiplicitous, the evidence was sufficient for attempted arson, and the admission of a co-defendant's statement was proper.
• United States v. Kimble
  719 F.2d 1253· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that various alleged errors, including limitations on cross-examination and the admission of certain evidence, were either harmless or properly handled by the trial court.
• United States v. Barnes
  681 F.2d 717· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that there was no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof, that severance was not required, and that venue and sufficiency of evidence were properly established for all counts. The court also found that the trial court's instructions cured any pre
• United States v. Lawson
  653 F.2d 299· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony based on hearsay did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights because he had adequate access to the underlying information for cross-examination, and lay testimony on sanity was properly admitted under the Federal Rule
• United States v. Williams
  592 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court erred by restricting cross-examination of a key witness and by failing to properly consider the suggestiveness of identification procedures.
• United States v. Swainson
  548 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator tapes was proper, even with an acquittal on the conspiracy charge, because independent evidence established a prima facie case of conspiracy, and that the perjury convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
• Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle
  545 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence did not violate due process because a strong link was established between the defendant and the other offenses, satisfying the fundamental fairness standard.
• Auckland Holmes v. United States Bd. OF Parole & United States Bureau of Prisons
  541 F.2d 1243· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 32×·via Confrontation And Cross-Examination
  A federal prisoner is entitled to procedural due process before being classified as a "Special Offender" because this designation significantly impacts opportunities for parole, furlough, and transfer, constituting a "grievous loss."
• United States v. Morris
  532 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Attorney General's designation of a Special Attorney was sufficiently specific under 28 U.S.C. § 515(a), the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a 'juice joint' or in denying access t
• United States v. Hargis Ray Murray
  527 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while a conspiracy was proven, the evidence was insufficient to connect four of the appellants to it, thus reversing their conspiracy convictions. However, convictions for substantive offenses were affirmed where evidence supported them.
• LEE v. State
  318 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-07-31 ·cited 32×
  A defendant convicted of heroin possession and sale appealed the trial court's exclusion of testimony about a pending robbery charge against the State's paid informant witness. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the defendant had a constitutional right to cross-examin
• United States v. Brasco
  516 F.2d 816· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy charges, the prosecution was not time-barred, and the trial court did not err in admitting prior testimony or denying a new trial.
• United States v. Payseur
  501 F.2d 966· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the issue of entrapment to the jury and that the jury instruction regarding reliance on a single truthful witness, while imperfect, did not constitute plain error.
• Nieves v. Oswald
  477 F.2d 1109· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 32×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to convene a three-judge court, as the claims regarding prison disciplinary procedures implicated state-wide policy and raised substantial constitutional questions.
• Stinson v. Turner
  473 F.2d 913· 10th Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the record affirmatively showed the guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, satisfying due process requirements.
• United States v. De Stefano
  476 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot due to the defendant's death, and the conviction is vacated.
• Farrell v. Lewin Joel, Jr.
  437 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1971-01-20 ·cited 32×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
• Sendejas v. United States
  428 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that appellants lacked standing to challenge the search, the trial court did not err in refusing an entrapment instruction, hearsay evidence was admissible, confrontation rights were not violated, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Dickens
  417 F.2d 958· 8th Cir.· 1969-11-10 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, finding the error in restricting cross-examination was not prejudicial.
• Cureton v. United States
  396 F.2d 671· D.C. Cir.· 1968-04-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary absence after a trial has commenced in non-capital cases does not prevent the trial's continuation, but the record must clearly establish the voluntary nature of the absence and the defendant's awareness of their rights and obligations.
• Belvin v. United States
  273 F.2d 583· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-05 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment and sentence.
• Love v. State
  971 So. 2d 280· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-01-09 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  Robert Love appeals five convictions arising from a traffic stop in Pahokee, claiming the police used the stop as retaliation for his public criticism of their department. The appellate court reversed due to fundamental error in jury instructions and prejudicial evidentiary rulin
• Creech v. A.J. Arave
  947 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 31×
  The panel erred in holding that Idaho's statutory aggravating factor of 'utter disregard for human life' is unconstitutionally vague, failing to give adequate deference to the Idaho Supreme Court's limiting construction.
• Russell v. Rolfs
  893 F.2d 1033· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the state is estopped from arguing procedural default because it previously represented to the federal court that an adequate and available state remedy existed, which contradicted its later argument that the petitioner was procedurally barred in state court.
• United States v. Parcel OF Real Prop. Known AS 6109 Grubb Rd.
  886 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the wife could avoid forfeiture by proving lack of consent, even if she had knowledge of her husband's illegal activities, and that hearsay evidence improperly admitted to rebut her innocent owner defense required vacating the forfeiture order.
• United States v. Allen
  797 F.2d 1395· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of all three defendants, finding no merit in their various claims regarding sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, sentencing, and suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Sutton
  732 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice were supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial court rulings did not constitute an abuse of discretion or reversible error.
• Martin v. Maggio
  711 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the conviction or sentence.
• Furlow v. United States
  644 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated, despite delays caused by a natural disaster.
• LEE v. State
  324 So. 2d 694· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-01-13 ·cited 31×
  Joseph Lee, a city mayor and commissioner, was convicted of requesting/accepting a bribe and conspiracy. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, including witness intimidation, allowing false testimony to go uncorrected, and improper plea
• United States ex rel. Rogelio Nieves Negron v. The State OF NEW York
  434 F.2d 386· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the lack of adequate translation for a non-English speaking defendant rendered his trial constitutionally infirm, violating due process.
• Dunn v. Cal. Dep't OF Corr.
  401 F.2d 340· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-08 ·cited 31×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that a state prisoner's parole revocation is not a federal constitutional question unless arbitrary or capricious, and the prisoner's claims did not meet this standard.
• United States v. Roberts
  881 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and that various sentencing and procedural challenges lacked merit.
• Emilio Jimenez v. State
  535 So. 2d 343· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-12-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove an agreement and intent to commit the offense, which are necessary elements for a conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Baresh
  790 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 30×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, restrictions on cross-examination, contempt citation of counsel, or in refusing to grant a mistrial. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and sentencing did not violate the double jeopa
• Kaplan v. State
  451 So. 2d 1386· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-06-13 ·cited 30×
  Evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct is admissible under Florida's rape shield statute only when it establishes a pattern of conduct or behavior so distinctive and closely resembling the defendant's version of the alleged encounter that it tends to prove consent, and a sin
• United States v. Farnsworth
  729 F.2d 1158· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting lay opinion identification testimony from parole officers was not an abuse of discretion, nor did it violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, provided the district court carefully limited the scope of examination to avoid revea
• Urquhart v. A.L. Lockhart
  726 F.2d 1316· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, affirming the judgment.
• United States v. McWILLIAMS
  730 F.2d 1218· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  A defendant cannot challenge a federal firearms conviction based on the invalidity of a prior predicate felony conviction, even if that conviction is constitutionally infirm.
• Morgan v. State
  415 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1982-03-18 ·cited 30×
  Floyd Morgan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for stabbing fellow inmate Joe Saylor to death in a Florida prison in 1977. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Morgan's arguments that the trial court committed reversi
• United States v. Kasto
  584 F.2d 268· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the prosecutrix's reputation for unchastity and specific prior sexual acts with others was not an abuse of discretion, as such evidence is generally irrelevant and highly prejudicial to the issue of consent in a rape case.