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. Castro
  887 F.2d 988· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give a specific unanimity instruction on the objects of the conspiracy, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance
• United States v. Hal Long
  866 F.2d 402· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions of Long and Kasch, finding that Long's consent to search and pre-arrest statements were voluntary, and that venue was proper for Kasch's possession charge under an aiding and abetting theory.
• Freeman v. Rideout
  808 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The filing of unfounded charges against a prison inmate does not, per se, constitute a constitutional violation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provided that the inmate receives the constitutionally required due process protections at a subsequent disciplinary hearing.
• Miller v. A.A. Stagner and R.L. Pulley
  757 F.2d 988· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from an in camera juror disqualification hearing.
• United States v. McMAHON
  715 F.2d 498· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that appellants' challenges to jury instructions and the denial of a hearing on standing were waived or barred by prior rulings, and that the government's failure to produce psychiatric reports did not violate Brady or the Sixth Amendment.
• DeBENEDICTIS v. Louie L. Wainwright & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Fla.
  674 F.2d 841· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the petitioners' habeas corpus petitions were properly denied because the information was not fatally defective and the admission of certain testimony did not violate their constitutional rights.
• United States v. Watson
  599 F.2d 1149· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the government had a sufficient prosecutorial interest in delaying the unsealing of an indictment to avoid tipping off other defendants, and that the defendant did not suffer substantial actual prejudice from this delay.
• United States v. Colyer
  571 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding the victim's homosexuality was harmless error, and the Master Charge tickets were properly admitted as business records.
• United States v. Lemon
  497 F.2d 854· 10th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while the government may have been on notice of potential changes in testimony, the impeachment of witnesses Robinson and Paden was proper or harmless error, and no plain error affecting substantial rights occurred.
• United States v. Lynch
  499 F.2d 1011· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in determining the witness was unavailable, and therefore the admission of her prior testimony was proper.
• United States v. Hernandez
  441 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 25×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while admitting post-arrest statements of co-conspirators was error, it was harmless in light of other evidence and testimony. The court also found no error in admitting background information from informants or in the jury charge.
• Jackson v. State
  127 So. 3d 447· Fla.· 2013-09-19 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  Michael Jackson seeks postconviction relief and habeas corpus review after conviction for first-degree murder, robbery, and kidnapping of an elderly couple in 2005. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial of relief, holding that Jackson failed to demonstrate ineffective assi
• United States v. Moore
  936 F.2d 1508· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an accomplice's statement, limiting cross-examination, or admitting palm print evidence, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Walker
  930 F.2d 789· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing further interrogation of a witness for impeachment on a collateral matter, and that the defendant's possession of a firearm, involving the firing of the weapon, qualified as a crime of violence for
• United States v. Kindred
  918 F.2d 485· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that admitting a urinalysis report through a probation officer's testimony does not violate the Sixth Amendment in a revocation hearing, and that revocation can be based on pre-modification violations if supported by evidence and mandated by statute.
• United States v. Lewis
  902 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that questions asked by an unknown caller are not hearsay because they do not assert anything, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict Lewis of conspiracy.
• United States v. Myers
  892 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant may be entitled to a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically concerning the handling of a codefendant's statement and an eyewitness identification. The conviction was vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Fuller
  887 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, evidence admission, closing arguments, or sentencing.
• United States v. Gordon
  876 F.2d 1121· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 24×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed convictions for drug distribution and conspiracy, finding sufficient evidence, no Brady violation, no prejudicial closing arguments, and proper application of sentencing guidelines.
• United States v. Vasquez
  874 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the redacted confession did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights.
• Spivey v. State
  529 So. 2d 1088· Fla.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  Herbert Spivey, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and robbery in the contract killing of Crofton's husband. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reversed the death penalty, holding that cross-examination regarding Spivey's post-arrest Miranda
• United States v. Manos
  848 F.2d 1427· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, denial of a continuance, or the prosecutor's closing argument.
• Dickson v. G.E. Sullivan
  849 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a deputy sheriff's statement to two jurors that the defendant had "done something like this before" created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, requiring reversal of the habeas corpus denial.
• United States v. Salim Fakhoury
  819 F.2d 1415· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the appellant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence for attempted arson and mail fraud, and that the admission of prior misconduct evidence and prosecutorial remarks did not deny a fair trial.
• Bennie E. Demps v. Louie L. Wainwright
  805 F.2d 1426· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no merit to the claims of suppressed witness deals, unconstitutional cross-examination limitations, or state interference with a defense witness.
• United States v. Peyro
  786 F.2d 826· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of an unrelated conspiracy, or admitting testimony from a witness with memory issues, and that the prosecutor's improper comment about the defendant lying was not pr
• United States v. Bell
  785 F.2d 640· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence from a police investigation, without a showing of good cause for dispensing with confrontation, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. DiCARO
  772 F.2d 1314· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a defendant cannot be both the 'person' and the 'enterprise' under RICO section 1962(c), requiring reversal of the RICO conviction. The court also held that the admission of a witness's prior grand jury testimony, despite claiming total amnesia, was permissibl
• United States v. Conn
  769 F.2d 420· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that tape recorded conversations were properly admitted as verbal acts or under the coconspirator exception, that the interstate commerce requirement was met, and that the defendant participated in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racket
• Brown v. State
  471 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  Anthony Brown appeals his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, arguing that the state violated procedural rules by taking a witness deposition without Brown's presence or notice. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, finding the state's failure to comply with depositi
• United States v. Dunn
  758 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning a second extortion attempt did not constructively amend the indictment and was admissible under the co-conspirator exception to hearsay, and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• Clark v. Maggio
  737 F.2d 471· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state judge's jury charge did not violate the accused's constitutional rights, and while the admission of a codefendant's statements violated the confrontation clause, it did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States ex rel. v. J.W. Fairman
  707 F.2d 936· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies by not raising his Sixth Amendment claim in state court, and alternatively, that any error in excluding the witness's prior inconsistent statement was harmless.
• Webb v. State
  426 So. 2d 1033· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-01-19 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  Webb was convicted of sexual battery and lewd assault on a child based primarily on the victim's grand jury testimony, which she later recanted at trial. The court held that prior inconsistent grand jury testimony is admissible as substantive evidence under Florida's Evidence Cod
• United States v. Ammirato
  670 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court properly accepted the defendant's guilty pleas, admitted hearsay evidence during sentencing, and imposed consecutive sentences for firearms convictions.
• Seymour Styers v. Smith
  659 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the identification procedures used were impermissibly suggestive and the resulting identifications were insufficiently reliable, mandating suppression of the in-court identification testimony.
• United States v. Balano
  618 F.2d 624· 10th Cir.· 1979-12-18 ·cited 24×
• United States v. Sawyer
  607 F.2d 1190· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-16 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a referral report, despite being hearsay and potentially excluded, was admissible under the recorded recollection exception when the reporting officer was available for cross-examination.
• Clayton v. Blackburn
  578 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding his guilty plea, and thus, a federal evidentiary hearing was not warranted.
• United States v. Cline
  570 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 24×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal, admitting photographs and hearsay statements, or in refusing to grant a mistrial.
• United States v. Kizer
  569 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's past drug addiction, nor did it err in removing the defendant from the courtroom for disruptive behavior.
• Blanco v. State
  353 So. 2d 602· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-12-13 ·cited 24×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Daniel Blanco appeals his conviction for sale or delivery of a controlled substance, arguing the trial court improperly restricted cross-examination by preventing inquiry into a paid informant's pending criminal charges and present address. The appellate court reverses, holding t
• United States v. Carrillo
  561 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that evidence of state law violations was admissible to prove tax fraud and that a codefendant's statement, even if hearsay, was harmless error.
• Meyer v. Frank
  550 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the three-year New York statute of limitations for civil rights actions should not be tolled during the period the plaintiff pursued a remedy in state courts.
• Seymour Kloner v. United States
  535 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the guilty plea was valid under Rule 11, but the parole revocation was unconstitutional due to lack of notice for one of the grounds.
• United States v. Truslow
  530 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of post-conspiracy statements that incriminate co-defendants in a joint trial, despite limiting instructions, violates the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause and requires severance or exclusion of the statements.
• Johnson v. Lou V. Brewer
  521 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the refusal to permit extrinsic evidence of a witness-informer's conduct did not violate any constitutional right of the defendant.
• Jackson v. Hutto
  508 F.2d 890· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-09 ·cited 24×
  Ex parte communications between a judge and jury are presumptively prejudicial but can constitute harmless error if the record shows no prejudice to the defendant.
• Slaughter v. State
  301 So. 2d 762· Fla.· 1974-09-25 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and arson of a school building, rejecting constitutional challenges to Florida's conspiracy statute and jury selection procedures, and finding no reversible error in the trial court's conduct.
• United States v. McKINLEY
  493 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective cross-examination and that a witness's improper statement constituted harmless error.