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

• Martin v. Maggio
  711 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the conviction or sentence.
• Mattes v. Gagnon
  700 F.2d 1096· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the admission of prior testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury instructions on intent did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof.
• United States v. Gambler
  662 F.2d 834· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination regarding the witness's prior civil suits, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not warrant reversal of the convictions.
• Furlow v. United States
  644 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 31×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Pryce
  938 F.2d 1343· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 30×
  The court should not consider the harmless error doctrine when the government fails to argue it, as this would violate the adversary system and judicial neutrality.
• Davis v. State
  562 So. 2d 431· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-06-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting a laboratory report as a business record in a probation revocation hearing does not violate due process or the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, even if the technician who performed the test is unavailable for cross-examination.
• United States v. Roberts
  881 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  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×·via Right To Confrontation
  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. Guinan
  836 F.2d 350· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of the unavailable witness's grand jury testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) was proper and did not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, as it possessed sufficient indicia of trustworthiness and corroboration.
• 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
• United States v. Erick Mitchell
  778 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that transporting a woman across state lines for the purpose of rape constitutes an "immoral purpose" under the Mann Act, and that successive federal prosecution after a state acquittal does not violate double jeopardy.
• 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×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, affirming the judgment.
• 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. Nunez
  668 F.2d 1116· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege on a collateral matter, in refusing to grant a mistrial based on a witness's mention of protective custody, or in refusing to dismiss the indictment based on grand jury p
• United States v. Nelson
  603 F.2d 42· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court coconspirator statements was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• 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.
• United States v. Herring
  582 F.2d 535· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the stop and search of the truck were based on probable cause, the admission of a witness statement did not violate discovery agreements, severance was not required, the arrest and search of Chapman's motel room were lawful, and in-court identifications were r
• United States v. Espinoza
  578 F.2d 224· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior similar act and that the stop of the truck was based on reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Price
  577 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that erroneous limitation of cross-examination is not per se reversible error, but is tested by the harmless error standard. The information sought by cross-examination was adequately presented to the jury through other means.
• United States v. Verne Allen Lyon
  567 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that evidence seized under a search warrant must be suppressed because the affidavit supporting the warrant failed to establish probable cause. The court affirmed the bail jumping conviction.
• United States v. Alvarez-Lopez
  559 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court committed prejudicial error of constitutional dimension by refusing to permit the defendant to inquire into the government's star witness' prior arrest for smuggling narcotics, thereby curtailing cross-examination.
• United States v. Cheung KIN Ping and Lai Mong Wah
  555 F.2d 1069· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial judge's instructions were proper, Cheung's double jeopardy and delay claims were meritless, and the admission of his statements, while potentially erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lai's claims regarding interpreter use and the handl
• United States v. Calhoun
  544 F.2d 291· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting testimony from a defendant's parole officer to identify him in a surveillance photograph was an abuse of discretion and not harmless error.
• United States v. Pasquale Charles Marzano
  537 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the FBI's active participation in the search and seizure of evidence by foreign officials violated the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, requiring suppression of the evidence.
• United States v. Gould
  536 F.2d 216· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of cocaine hydrochloride as a Schedule II controlled substance and instructing the jury to accept this fact as conclusive, nor did it err in refusing to strike a co-conspirator's testimony despite his in
• Cameron v. Fastoff
  543 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 30×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust state remedies for their federal constitutional claims, but affirmed the dismissal on the merits for the claim regarding probable cause for the search warrants.
• United States v. Wiley
  534 F.2d 659· 6th Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 30×
  The court denied the government's petition for rehearing, finding that while some arguments were supported by the record, others were still improper.
• United States v. Francene Wilson Isaacs and Isaac Washington
  516 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Prieto
  505 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
• Alverez v. Turner
  422 F.2d 214· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that parole revocation hearings do not require the full due process rights afforded in criminal trials, such as confrontation, cross-examination, or compulsory process, but equal protection may be violated by discretionary practices regarding witnesses.
• United States v. Catino
  403 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1968-11-19 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting evidence, or denying the right to proceed pro se.
• United States v. Earnest Norman
  402 F.2d 73· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination or quashing writs for witnesses, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on alleged perjured tes
• Cohen v. The United States
  369 F.2d 976· Ct. Cl.· 1966-12-16 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that former customs inspectors were not entitled to recover back pay for illegal suspension and discharge, as their dismissals were based on substantiated charges of misconduct and false statements.
• United States v. Alpheus Holiday
  319 F.2d 775· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-28 ·cited 30×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's contentions for setting aside his conviction were without merit and affirmed the denial of his motion.
• State v. Belvin
  986 So. 2d 516· Fla.· 2008-05-01 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that portions of a breath test affidavit containing the technician's procedures and observations are testimonial evidence under Crawford v. Washington, and their admission without the technician's in-court testimony violates the Sixth Amendment's Co
• State v. Pinder
  678 So. 2d 410· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-07-22 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the State's petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order requiring in camera disclosure of sexual assault victim counselor communications and records. The court held that Florida's absolute sexual assault coun
• United States v. Miles Davis Saunders
  973 F.2d 1354· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the jury instructions were adequate, and that the Sentencing Guidelines were applied constitutionally.
• United States v. Cuevas
  847 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 29×
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding legitimate currency exchange practices, which was material to the defendant's defense, violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense and necessitates a new trial.
• Chavis v. State OF N.C.
  637 F.2d 213· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 29×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's amended statement and psychiatric report violated the petitioners' due process rights.
• United States v. Mobley
  421 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's prior trial testimony, subject to cross-examination, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause when the co-defendant is unavailable at the second trial. It also held that a victim's statement to an FBI agent was admis
• Barnes v. State
  124 So. 3d 904· Fla.· 2013-06-27 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  James Phillip Barnes, sentenced to death for a 1988 murder, appealed the denial of his initial Rule 3.851 motion for postconviction relief. Barnes claimed the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency evaluation before allowing him to plead guilty, despite his discl
• Garcia v. State
  816 So. 2d 554· Fla.· 2002-04-18 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  Garcia was convicted of murdering Mario Amador and Roberto Alfonso and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions and death sentences, finding multiple critical errors including improper exclusion of impeachment evidence against the key witness Ribera,
• United States v. Noone
  913 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the jury instructions were proper, and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause was not infringed by the partial assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege by a witness.
• Garlington v. O'Leary
  879 F.2d 277· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The admission of a codefendant's statement as a coconspirator's statement did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. DiCARO
  852 F.2d 259· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying 18 U.S.C. § 3147 to a defendant released on bond before the statute's effective date without prior notice of the enhanced penalties. The court affirmed the underlying convictions but vacated the sentence imposed under § 314