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. Johnson
  495 F.2d 242· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that admitting prejudicial evidence concerning the circumstances of the defendant's arrest, over objection, was an abuse of discretion and required reversal.
• United States v. Payne
  492 F.2d 449· 4th Cir.· 1974-02-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of an unavailable witness's prior statement, even if unsworn and un-cross-examined at the time of making, is permissible if the witness is present and available for cross-examination at trial, and the statement possesses sufficient indicia of rel
• United States v. Tompkins
  487 F.2d 146· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a Treasury claim form containing a deceased individual's statement was inadmissible hearsay but its admission constituted harmless error given other corroborating evidence and the defendant's opportunity to cross-examine the victim's wife.
• State v. Zebedee Johnson, Jr.
  280 So. 2d 673· Fla.· 1973-07-18 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved whether a defendant has a right of confrontation and independent examination of critical physical evidence (a fatal bullet) when the prosecution loses that evidence before trial. The Court held that while a defendant need not have the State's te
• United States v. Steed
  465 F.2d 1310· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements, despite a Bruton violation, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming admissible evidence of guilt. The court also found no merit in other procedural and constitutional claims.
• United States v. LE Pera
  443 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-10 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting counterfeiting and conspiracy was valid, affirming the trial court's rulings on pre-trial motions, jury selection, evidence admissibility, and the election of counts.
• United States v. Calarco
  424 F.2d 657· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, potentially violating due process by allowing hearsay to be used to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• DeCARLO v. United States
  422 F.2d 237· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that evidence of prior smuggling and marihuana use was admissible and that the appellants' other contentions, including self-incrimination and confrontation clause issues, were without merit.
• United States v. Carlson
  423 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the insanity defense, nor did it err in striking the testimony related to that defense. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of a tape recording, the curtailment of cros
• Millard v. Harris
  406 F.2d 964· D.C. Cir.· 1968-11-08 ·cited 24×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Sexual Psychopath Act, when interpreted to mean 'not mentally ill,' is not applicable to the appellant because his past sexual misconduct does not demonstrate a likelihood of future dangerousness sufficient to justify commitment under the statute.
• Flores v. United States
  379 F.2d 905· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 24×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial when a co-defendant's statement, which implicated the defendant, was introduced at trial.
• United States ex rel. Fred Floyd v. Wilkins
  367 F.2d 990· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession without redaction, coupled with insufficient evidence and ineffective limiting instructions, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendmen
• Cruzado v. People of Puerto RICO
  210 F.2d 789· 1st Cir.· 1954-03-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a defendant's counsel can waive the right to confrontation and cross-examination, especially when the defendant is present and does not object to the stipulation.
• Wyon Dale Childers v. Floyd
  642 F.3d 953· 11th Cir.· 2011-06-02 ·cited 23×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for official behavior based largely on testimony from Willie Junior, a co-conspirator who entered a plea agreement with the State. Childers sought to cross-examine Junior about the Elliot acquittal and a Notice
• Elwell v. State
  954 So. 2d 104· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-04-25 ·cited 23×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Thomas Elwell appeals his conviction for attempted lewd and lascivious molestation, challenging the trial court's admission of child-hearsay statements on the ground that the court failed to make specific factual findings required by Florida Statute section 90.803(23). The appell
• Jones v. State
  577 So. 2d 606· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-03-13 ·cited 23×
  Thomas Jones was convicted of sexual battery, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony about a dispatcher's report of a female screaming, which the prosecutor used to contradict th
• United States v. Quinn
  901 F.2d 522· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior testimony without a sufficient showing of unavailability violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Anilkumar R. Parikh
  858 F.2d 688· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-25 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that any trial errors were invited, not preserved, or did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Bertram
  805 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 23×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the search and seizure were lawful, the trial judge's conduct did not deny a fair trial, evidentiary rulings were within discretion, and the evidence was sufficient to convict.
• United States v. Bernard S.
  795 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a juvenile's waiver of Miranda rights was valid despite limited English proficiency and age, and that medical records were admissible without the doctor testifying as the evidence was peripheral and any error was harmless.
• Hannah v. State
  432 So. 2d 631· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-31 ·cited 23×·via Right To Confrontation
  A juvenile appellant was convicted of armed robbery after a Pizza Hut employee identified him as the masked gunman. The court reversed because it improperly denied cross-examination of the key eyewitness to establish bias or prejudice stemming from a conflict between the witness
• United States ex rel. Gerald Scarpelli v. George
  687 F.2d 1012· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 23×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that a restriction on cross-examination of a crucial witness is not automatically harmful error and can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if it does not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Howze
  668 F.2d 322· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 23×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to rule on the constitutional validity of the defendant's prior guilty plea and by not properly applying the standard for admitting flight evidence.
• Holt v. Wyrick
  649 F.2d 543· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony and the use of information from tape recordings, even if obtained unconstitutionally, were harmless errors beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the retrial after a mistrial due to jury deadlock did not violate doub
• Jackson v. State
  707 So. 2d 412· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-03-20 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jackson appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm. The appellate court reversed his conviction, finding two reversible errors: (1) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony about an anonymous tip identifying the defendant, and (2) the p
• United States v. Ellender
  947 F.2d 748· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed most convictions, finding no reversible error in severance, indictment sufficiency, discovery, or prosecutorial misconduct claims, but remanded one defendant's double jeopardy claim.
• Adams v. Sewell
  946 F.2d 757· 11th Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  James Adams, an Environmental Coordinator for Orange County, Florida, was terminated following an investigation into sexual harassment allegations. Adams sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the County violated his procedural and substantive due process rights. The district cour
• United States v. Blair William Guthrie
  931 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by not respecting a state court's vacation of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes under the Guidelines, but affirmed the conviction and other rulings.
• United States v. Smith
  930 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the arrest warrant was valid, the warrantless search was constitutional based on third-party consent, the evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession of firearms, and the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and sentencing errors were wi
• United States v. Arboleda
  929 F.2d 858· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence, the handling of discovery violations, or the denial of witness access.
• United States v. Guerra-Marez
  928 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that wiretap evidence was admissible, a variance between the indictment and evidence did not prejudice substantial rights, and prosecutorial explanations for jury strikes were adequate. However, the evidence was insufficient to support Wenseslada Reyes-Moya's consp
• United States v. van Dorn
  925 F.2d 1331· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding his prior drug prosecution and alleged threats, nor in admitting testimony about a defendant's affiliation with the Gambino crime family and expe
• Valladares v. United States
  871 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's understanding of the trial and the assistance of his counsel were adequate, despite challenges to the interpreter's performance.
• Dorsey v. Parke
  872 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 22×
  The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not guarantee a defendant the right to cross-examine into a relevant subject already broached solely to expose witness demeanor, nor does it mandate the admission of evidence routinely excluded by evidentiary rules, even if exc
• United States v. Chestang
  849 F.2d 528· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that coconspirator statements were properly admitted, the government's discovery violation was harmless, the admission of check endorsements was harmless error, and the district court's prejudicial remark was cured by a corrective instruction.
• United States v. Wolf
  839 F.2d 1387· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendants' due process rights were not violated by the government's failure to produce gross tissue samples, and that statements admitted under the coconspirator exception were properly admitted or constituted harmless error. The court also found no due p
• United States v. Armand W. Robinson, Sr.
  832 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting voir dire regarding potential jurors' knowledge of attorneys' publicity, this error was harmless and did not deny the defendant a fair trial. The court also affirmed limitations on cross-examination of informants, findin
• United States v. Crockett
  813 F.2d 1310· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that Thressa Crews was improperly prohibited from cross-examining her co-defendant, Henry Crockett, violating her Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights.
• Chambers v. State
  504 So. 2d 476· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-19 ·cited 22×
  Chambers was convicted of capital sexual battery against his young stepsons based on videotaped testimony taken before trial. On appeal, he challenged the use of videotaped testimony during jury deliberations, his limited presence during the videotaping (viewing from behind a two
• United States v. Cameron
  814 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of a witness's drug use and misdemeanor conviction, nor in excluding evidence of a co-conspirator's flight, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and the fine was permissible.
• United States v. Price
  792 F.2d 994· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the introduction of taped conversations did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, nor did the government's handling of other taped evidence violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Jimenez
  780 F.2d 975· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated by the arrests without probable cause, the denial of severance due to a Bruton violation, or the denial of a mistrial for a sequestration rule violation.
• United States v. Donald Malsom & Tencom Corp.
  779 F.2d 1228· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that sufficient evidence existed to prove criminal intent for violating export laws and that the search warrant affidavit was valid.
• United States v. Emerson Molt
  772 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-10 ·cited 22×
• Marr v. State
  470 So. 2d 703· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-29 ·cited 22×
  Paul Allen Marr appeals his sexual battery conviction, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's rape shield statute as applied to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct relevant to bias, and contesting the trial court's denial of a requested jury instruction
• Crockett Stevens v. Bordenkircher
  746 F.2d 342· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding a key witness's bias and the improper admission of a death certificate violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. McCULLAH
  745 F.2d 350· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Blessing
  727 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Blessing's conspiracy conviction but sufficient to support Rodriguez's conviction.
• United States v. Pizarro
  717 F.2d 336· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government was not responsible for the informant's disappearance and made reasonable efforts to locate him, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the informant's unavailability or cross-examination.
• Trussell v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  699 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of the police report, while potentially an error under state law, did not violate due process because the defendant was offered alternative means to present the exculpatory evidence, which he declined.