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. Aloisio
  440 F.2d 705· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and various procedural and constitutional challenges were without merit.
• Reed v. Beto
  343 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 33×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Diosme Fernandez Hano
  922 F.3d 1272· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-30 ·cited 32×
  Diosme Fernandez Hano and Reinaldo Arrastia-Cardoso were convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy for stealing $1.7 million from an armored truck in 2009. The Eleventh Circuit addressed two issues of first impression: whether a five-year statute of limitations for DNA-implic
• Peters v. State
  984 So. 2d 1227· Fla.· 2008-05-01 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rule established in Crawford v. Washington, which prohibits testimonial hearsay in criminal prosecutions without cross-examination opportunity, does not apply to probation or community control revocation
• Barron v. State
  990 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-08-22 ·cited 32×
  John Lee Barron was convicted of second degree felony murder, attempted armed robbery, and attempted second degree murder arising from an armed robbery of Ed Cody's home in September 2000. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Barron could be held liable as a
• United States v. Harris
  908 F.2d 728· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that two juror remarks were ambiguous and did not necessitate further investigation into juror misconduct.
• United States v. Nestor Julio Perez-Garcia
  904 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing, finding that while the admission of a codefendant's statement was erroneous and violated the confrontation clause, it did not constitute plain error requiring reversal due to sufficient independent evidence. Prior acts
• 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×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Vretta
  790 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Mark Hauser's death and Vretta's threats against Allen Hauser, as the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and the evidence was admissible under hearsay exceptions.
• 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. Ferguson
  776 F.2d 217· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant waived his Speedy Trial Act rights by failing to object, that the expungement of prior convictions was validly handled, and that the evidence and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. McDANIEL
  773 F.2d 242· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that statements by alleged coconspirators were properly admitted under the coconspirator hearsay exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that evidence of other crimes and seized items was also admissible.
• United States v. Hunt
  749 F.2d 1078· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that hearsay evidence, though generally inadmissible to prove predisposition, may be admitted to show the reasonableness and good faith of a government investigation when the defendant challenges the investigation's conduct.
• United States v. Briscoe
  742 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  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
• Lenza v. Wyrick
  665 F.2d 804· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, that the hearsay testimony was admissible under the state of mind exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that there was sufficie
• United States ex rel. Melvin Haywood v. Wolff
  658 F.2d 455· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that unreliable witness testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Bruner
  657 F.2d 1278· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of prescriptions under the business records exception or coconspirator rule was proper, and that the failure to give immediate limiting instructions on prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Palumbo
  639 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 32×
  A third party's statement inculpating the accused is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) if it is against the declarant's penal interest and corroborated by circumstances indicating trustworthiness, provided it does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
• United States v. Sarmiento-Perez
  633 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 32×
  The custodial confession of a non-testifying, separately tried coconspirator, which directly implicates the accused in the crime, is inadmissible against the accused as a statement against penal interest under Fed.R.Ev. 804(b)(3) because it is not sufficiently reliable.
• Burr v. Sullivan
  618 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 32×
• United States v. Williams
  592 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• Phillips v. Wyrick
  558 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony through a prosecutor's testimony was permissible under the confrontation clause exception when the witness invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• 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.
• United States v. Morris
  532 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-27 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• Egger v. United States
  509 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to object to alleged constitutional errors at trial generally waives the right to raise them in a collateral attack, unless the errors are so fundamental as to deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Payseur
  501 F.2d 966· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 32×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• 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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.
• White v. United States
  415 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling discovery, denying severance, or denying access to grand jury testimony, and that the introduction of a codefendant's confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
• 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.
• United States v. Goldfaden
  959 F.2d 1324· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-22 ·cited 31×
  The Government's submission of memoranda advocating for specific guideline applications violated its plea agreement promise to make no recommendation, constituting plain error.
• Creech v. A.J. Arave
  947 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Davis
  890 F.2d 1373· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for extortion and upholding evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Parcel OF Real Prop. Known AS 6109 Grubb Rd.
  886 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Panas
  738 F.2d 278· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that statements made by a co-conspirator are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule if independent evidence shows it is more likely than not that a conspiracy existed, and that admission of such statements, along with other challenged evi
• United States v. Sutton
  732 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  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.