Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)

1,582 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 857 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Brown
  699 F.2d 585· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 38×
  The admission of a post-indictment, uncounseled statement for impeachment purposes violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and its use to incriminate a co-defendant denied the co-defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Nunzio Provenzano
  688 F.2d 194· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• Steele v. Taylor
  684 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
• United States v. Andrew
  666 F.2d 915· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Coven
  662 F.2d 162· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding recusal, confrontation rights, government summation, jury instructions, Fourth Amendment claims, or the sufficiency of the conspiracy count.
• 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×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Bazzano
  570 F.2d 1120· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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
• Mac McABEE v. United States
  434 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that jury instructions allowing inferences of knowledge and interstate transportation from possession of recently stolen firearms are constitutionally valid.
• Mason v. United States
  408 F.2d 903· 10th Cir.· 1969-03-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that admitting prior trial testimony of witnesses who refused to testify at the second trial, despite being granted immunity, was proper because the witnesses were unavailable. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in denying motions for acquittal or
• Conn v. The United States
  376 F.2d 878· Ct. Cl.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 38×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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 Constitutional Right To 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
• 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. Crumley
  565 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination of a government witness regarding their motive for testifying, specifically concerning the discovery of a stolen Cadillac, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. DOE
  525 F.2d 878· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 37×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• Schaffer v. State
  769 So. 2d 496· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-10-18 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  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
• Correll v. Dugger
  558 So. 2d 422· Fla.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Snyder
  872 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the district court erred in admitting a deceased witness's grand jury testimony without sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, the error was harmless because the defendant later corroborated key parts of the testimony. The court also found no plain er
• Burns v. Clusen
  798 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.
• 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.
• United States v. Howard
  774 F.2d 838· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-09 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the defendants' convictions for vote fraud, finding no reversible error in the indictment, evidence sufficiency, trial rulings, or prosecutorial conduct.
• Maugeri v. State
  460 So. 2d 975· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-12-18 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Arvey Hawy Lyons and Vickie Elaine Lyons
  703 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a mistrial was not required when a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment after partial direct testimony, as the testimony was cumulative and the jury was instructed to disregard it. The court also held that a failure to hold a Rule 44(c) hearing on joint represe
• United States v. Mohammad Ali Bastanipour
  697 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Bienvenue
  632 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1980-09-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntary, evidence obtained from an unlawful search was admissible under independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines, the admission of the wife's statement was harmless error, but the special parole term for a conspir
• 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. Donald E. Belle. Appeal of Donald Belle
  593 F.2d 487· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 36×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction, violates the Confrontation Clause if it is powerfully incriminating and the jury cannot be expected to disregard it.
• United States v. James A. "Bubba" Mathis
  559 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the ex-wife's prior statements were inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence because she was an available witness, and their admission violated the necessity requirement of Rule 803(24).
• United States v. Estremera
  531 F.2d 1103· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the regulation allowed hearsay testimony, and it was unnecessary to fit within common law hearsay exceptions.
• Caton v. United States
  407 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for dismissal, severance, admitting the overheard conversation, instructing the jury on the failure to testify, or dismissing the indictment based on transfer to federal jurisdiction.
• Tanner v. United States
  401 F.2d 281· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-09 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• United States ex rel. Carl G. Gerchman v. Mahoney
  355 F.2d 302· 3d Cir.· 1966-01-11 ·cited 36×