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

• KAY v. United States
  255 F.2d 476· 4th Cir.· 1958-05-17 ·cited 36×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• Bundy v. Louie L. Wainwright
  808 F.2d 1410· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 35×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
• 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.
• United States v. Falsia
  724 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence, refusing a specific jury instruction, denying a motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, or excluding juror declarations regarding deliberations.
• United States v. Rosales
  584 F.2d 870· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's suppression of the co-conspirator statement, finding it was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Ann (LNU) Decker and Larry J. Vice
  543 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-10 ·cited 35×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• United States v. Cogwell
  486 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1973-10-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's convictions for conspiracy and substantive offenses, and that the admission of co-defendant statements did not violate the confrontation clause.
• Maiker Vazquez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  827 F.3d 964· 11th Cir.· 2016-07-01 ·cited 34×
  Maiker Vazquez appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging the admission of hearsay evidence violating his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The district court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred for failure to exhaust state remedies
• Wyon Dale Childers v. State
  936 So. 2d 585· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-02-02 ·cited 34×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for his role in purchasing the Pensacola Soccer Complex while serving as an Escambia County Commissioner. On appeal, the court affirmed the exclusion of evidence challenging his co-conspirator's plea agreement
• A.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  901 So. 2d 324· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-05-04 ·cited 34×
  Mother A.B. appealed an adjudication of dependency in which the trial court found she neglected and abused her 15-year-old daughter by failing to protect her from the stepfather's sexual and physical abuse. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly admit
• Denesiz Letroy Smith v. State
  880 So. 2d 730· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-05-28 ·cited 34×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Simmons
  964 F.2d 763· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing for one defendant, finding that while the exclusion of a probation report was an error, it was harmless, and that the Sentencing Guidelines' crack penalty ratio was constitutional.
• United States v. Harty
  930 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court had jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act, the admission of taped conversations was proper, and the sentence imposed on Gurgone was not excessive.
• United States v. Lenfesty
  923 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 34×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• United States v. Dombrowski
  877 F.2d 520· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination, admitting a photograph, or applying the sentencing enhancement statute to prior burglary convictions.
• 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. KEY
  725 F.2d 1123· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 34×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that directly incriminated the appellant and was vital to the government's case violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Cody
  722 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1983-11-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the conviction on Count II for receiving rent-free use of an apartment was reversed because the employer did not employ members of the union. However, convictions for receiving free chauffeuring services, tax evasion, and filing a false return were affirmed.
• United States v. MacCini
  721 F.2d 840· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 34×·via Right To Confrontation
  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
• United States v. King Ricardo Murphy
  696 F.2d 282· 4th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that grand jury testimony of a witness who testified at trial but refused to answer questions, and whose testimony was inconsistent with his prior sworn grand jury testimony, was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and did not violate the Confrontat
• 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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Lamb
  575 F.2d 1310· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that defendants waived their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by testifying on direct examination about certain events, and that the trial court properly supervised the scope of cross-examination. It also held that prior convictions were admissi
• United States v. Hansen
  569 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 34×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• United States v. Thompson
  420 F.2d 536· 3d Cir.· 1970-01-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the arrest was lawful, the shotgun was legally seized, and the indictment did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
• Barnaby Ashford Bloomer v. United States
  409 F.2d 869· 9th Cir.· 1969-04-09 ·cited 34×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• Tkach v. United States
  242 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1957-03-29 ·cited 34×
  An affidavit showing no record of employment is admissible evidence, and a defendant waives a motion for acquittal by presenting evidence after its denial.
• Moore v. Kemp
  824 F.2d 847· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the petition.
• United States v. Dadanian
  818 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no plain error in admitting plea agreement terms, no ineffective assistance of counsel, sufficient evidence for mail fraud and Travel Act convictions, and that the gambling business violated local law. The Sixth Amendment rights were no
• United States v. Owens
  789 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the victim's out-of-court identification was inadmissible hearsay because the victim's memory loss prevented effective cross-examination, violating the Confrontation Clause. However, the error was deemed harmless due to other evidence.
• United States v. DiMARIA
  727 F.2d 265· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge held that even if the exclusion of the defendant's statement was an error, it was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Washington
  705 F.2d 489· D.C. Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that while the defendant's right to be present during a portion of the voir dire was violated, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and other grounds for appeal were without merit.
• United States v. Taylor
  508 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-21 ·cited 33×
  The admission of a co-defendant's statement implicating the defendant, in violation of a prior agreement and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, constitutes reversible error unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does not 'open the door' to such evidence i
• Shuler v. Louie L. Wainwright
  491 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the alleged faking of footprint casts, as the state court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the failure to voluntarily disclose the victim's statement
• Favre v. Henderson
  464 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 33×