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. Sunrhodes
  831 F.2d 1537· 10th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the full demands of the Confrontation Clause do not apply to restitution proceedings under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, and that the admission of telephone testimony and the order of restitution to the Indian Health Service were proper.
• United States v. Springer
  831 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated.
• United States v. Solomon
  825 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that jury instructions adequately covered specific intent and willfulness, and that the admission of personal tax returns was proper. However, an increased sentence upon retrial was presumptively vindictive due to lack of objective justification in the record.
• United States v. Moore
  791 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of a deceased witness's excited utterance and a bid tabulation sheet as a business record were not abuses of discretion, and that the cross-examination and juror excusal were proper.
• United States v. Ricks
  776 F.2d 455· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge holds that defense counsel's failure to seek clarification on jury selection procedures was unreasonable, and therefore the convictions should be affirmed.
• Barker v. Morris
  761 F.2d 1396· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 28×
  The admission of sworn, videotaped testimony from a deceased eyewitness did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the testimony was necessary and possessed particular guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Haber v. Louie L. Wainwright
  756 F.2d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regarding prior burglaries was likely harmless error, a remand is necessary to determine if the state failed to disclose an understanding or agreement with a key witness regarding prior crimes, which cou
• United States v. Johnpoll
  739 F.2d 702· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of Swiss deposition testimony was proper, and minor deviations in responding to jury inquiries were harmless errors. However, the court found merit in the defendant's argument regarding multiplicitous counts.
• United States v. Wilson
  732 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or procedural decisions, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• Ellis v. Black
  732 F.2d 650· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding sufficient evidence to support the manslaughter conviction and no constitutional error in the admission of evidence or prosecutorial conduct.
• United States v. Robert H. Gullett (81-1536)
  713 F.2d 1203· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, finding sufficient evidence for convictions, and that Travel Act counts were not multiplicious. However, a recorded conversation was improperly admitted against one defendant.
• United States v. Young
  736 F.2d 565· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 28×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements by a deceased accountant was proper under the Federal Rules of Evidence, but reversed the conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.
• Conway v. Anderson
  698 F.2d 282· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-21 ·cited 28×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption of intent, similar to that in Sandstrom v. Montana, was harmless error in this case because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the perpetrators' intent.
• United States v. Yitchak Ijo Perlmuter
  693 F.2d 1290· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Hargrove
  647 F.2d 411· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-22 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence suppression, jury voir dire, newspaper article inquiries, knock-and-announce violations, informant disclosure, or joint trial.
• United States v. Espericueta-Reyes
  631 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-29 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that subsequent searches of a vehicle after an initial border crossing can be considered valid 'extended border searches' if reasonably related in time and distance to the border, and that brief detentions and questioning during such searches do not require Miranda
• United States v. Passaro
  624 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to present exculpatory evidence were proper, the search of the defendant's wallet incident to arrest was lawful, and any potential Fifth Amendment violation from a single ambiguous prosecutorial comment was
• Hall v. State
  381 So. 2d 683· Fla.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court vacated and remanded the death sentences imposed in two first-degree murder convictions, requiring the trial court to provide more detailed written findings of fact regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court held that conclusory statem
• United States v. Green
  600 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, even if not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and that other evidentiary and constitutional claims lacked merit.
• United States v. Benfield
  593 F.2d 815· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the procedures used during the videotaped deposition of a key witness, where the defendant was excluded from the witness's vision and unaware of the defendant's presence.
• United States v. Davis
  571 F.2d 1354· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting ATF forms containing hearsay statements from a third-party records custodian under the business records exception (Fed.R.Evid. 803(6)) because the foundation laid was insufficient to establish trustworthiness.
• United States v. LaRICHE
  549 F.2d 1088· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in issuing an Allen charge, in its jury instructions regarding the presumption of truthfulness, or in limiting cross-examination of a key witness. Appellant Cisternino's claims of constructive amendment of the indictment, ineffectiv
• United States v. Killian
  541 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-05 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for willful misapplication of bank funds and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or sentencing.
• United States v. Flores Amaya
  533 F.2d 188· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that admitting prior trial testimony of a witness who lost memory due to an accident was permissible under the Confrontation Clause, and that jury awareness of a prior conviction was not prejudicial.
• Kirby v. Blackledge
  530 F.2d 583· 4th Cir.· 1976-01-19 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding prisoners' claims of due process violations and cruel and unusual punishment.
• United States v. Armedo-Sarmiento
  524 F.2d 591· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-10 ·cited 28×
  A district court must allow criminal defendants to waive their Sixth Amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel and confrontation, even when counsel has a conflict of interest with potential witnesses, provided the waiver is knowing and intelligent.
• Lebowitz v. State
  313 So. 2d 473· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-05-27 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  Walter Lebowitz, an attorney, was convicted of receiving stolen property—a purse worth approximately $200 that his client George Foley allegedly stole from Neiman-Marcus. Lebowitz appealed on multiple grounds, including claims that cross-examination violated his Fifth Amendment r
• United States v. Leal
  509 F.2d 122· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-06 ·cited 28×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the disputed exhibits were properly admitted.
• United States v. Penick
  496 F.2d 1105· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of government witnesses, nor in refusing to authorize funds for polygraph examinations for all counts, as such evidence is generally inadmissible.
• The United States v. Eloy Baca
  494 F.2d 424· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a bill of particulars, refusing to disclose an informer's identity prior to trial, or in excusing a juror mid-trial. The defendant's absence from an in camera discussion regarding the juror's excusal was not prejudicial.
• United States ex rel. Carlos Ortiz v. Fritz
  476 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-26 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that under circuit precedent, Bruton v. United States does not apply when codefendants' confessions interlock.
• United States v. Sewar
  468 F.2d 236· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the unintentional destruction of a blood sample by a technician does not require suppression of test results, as it does not violate due process or the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Troutman
  458 F.2d 217· 10th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the collective knowledge of the police and that the denial of the severance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Satiris G. Fassoulis
  445 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-18 ·cited 28×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy count and that the submission of unproven overt acts was harmless error. The court also found no constitutional deprivation regarding the identification of the defendant by voice and t
• United States v. Fiore
  443 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that admitting a witness's unsworn grand jury testimony as substantive evidence, when the witness refused to be sworn and was unavailable for cross-examination at trial, was error.
• United States v. Mancuso
  423 F.2d 23· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-17 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Cossie Burruss, Jr.
  418 F.2d 677· 4th Cir.· 1969-11-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that police 'theft reports' containing hearsay are inadmissible under the Federal Business Records Act to prove the truth of the matter asserted, especially in a criminal case where it violates the defendant's confrontation rights.
• Hanley v. United States
  416 F.2d 1160· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of bank collection slips as business records, the denial of motions for acquittal and mistrial, and the refusal of a limiting instruction did not constitute reversible error.
• Campbell v. United States
  415 F.2d 356· 6th Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 28×
  The admission of co-defendants' extra-judicial statements, admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Harris
  409 F.2d 77· 4th Cir.· 1969-04-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying pretrial discovery motions, motions to sequester witnesses, motions for severance, or motions for acquittal, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• Osborne v. United States
  371 F.2d 913· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-18 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to require disclosure of a trial witness's grand jury testimony for use in cross-examination.
• Cordova v. United States
  303 F.2d 454· 10th Cir.· 1962-05-17 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that an indictment is not duplicitous if it pleads statutory offenses conjunctively in one count, and that the failure to endorse government witnesses or the presumption of guilt in the statute are not grounds for reversal.
• Christoffel v. United States
  200 F.2d 734· D.C. Cir.· 1952-09-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on evidence, cross-examination, or the admission of prior testimony, and therefore affirmed the conviction.
• State v. McRae
  49 Fla. 389· Fla.· 1905-01-01 ·cited 28×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that disbarment proceedings against attorneys are civil, not criminal, in nature, and therefore depositions of absent witnesses taken on commission and written interrogatories are admissible evidence. The Court granted a mandamus petition compelling
• Lenorris Parker v. State
  973 So. 2d 1167· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-08-31 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the State properly used a certified "Certification of Records" to establish the appellant's prison release date, satisfying statutory requirements and not violating constitutional rights.
• Peters v. State
  919 So. 2d 624· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-01-24 ·cited 27×
  Peters challenges the admission of a laboratory drug test report at his community control revocation hearing, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington. The court holds that Crawford does not apply to community control revocation
• Pacheco v. State
  698 So. 2d 593· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-08-01 ·cited 27×
  John Pacheco was convicted of first-degree arson, but the appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly admitted a taped statement from a non-testifying codefendant, violating both the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause. The court remanded for a new trial on
• United States v. Johnson
  971 F.2d 562· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·cited 27×
  The court held that transfers of funds from investors to the defendant's account did not constitute transactions in 'criminally derived property' under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 because the defendant had not yet 'obtained' the proceeds. However, transfers from the defendant's account to i
• United States v. Farmer
  923 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that double jeopardy and collateral estoppel did not bar retrial after a mistrial, the district court had jurisdiction to proceed, evidentiary rulings were proper, and the sentencing appeal was moot.
• United States v. Smith
  893 F.2d 1573· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a calendar/drug ledger was admissible as a co-conspirator statement under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) because the government established it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and its author was reasonably certain. Other arguments regarding the