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. Tunnell
  667 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the RICO convictions and forfeiture, and that the use of a videotaped deposition did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Miller
  666 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence derived from an inadmissible diary was admissible if it was sufficiently attenuated from the primary taint or would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means, and that the admission of a co-defendant's confession against a defendant, when n
• United States v. Williams
  668 F.2d 1064· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by unduly restricting the defendant's cross-examination of a key government witness, thereby violating the confrontation clause and requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Tobias Q. Poole v. Perini
  659 F.2d 730· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-18 ·cited 22×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of portions of accomplice statements adopted by the appellant constituted admissible adoptive confessions, and any remaining hearsay was harmless error. The court also found that the admission of polygraph evidence, to which the appellant
• Clementine Williams v. State
  386 So. 2d 25· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-06-25 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Clementine Williams appeals her manslaughter conviction, arguing the trial court erred by preventing cross-examination of the state's key witness about a prior false statement to police. The court agreed and reversed, holding that restricting cross-examination on credibility of c
• United States v. Harold Glickman aka Hal Glickman
  604 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government met its burden to produce an informant and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Bleckner
  601 F.2d 382· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court erred in unduly limiting the defendant's cross-examination of a key government witness, thereby violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
• United States v. White
  562 F.2d 587· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government introduced sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the charges of conspiracy and bank fraud, and that the defendant's false statements to the grand jury were material.
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• United States v. Dady
  536 F.2d 675· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant's confession, along with independent evidence, did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  519 F.2d 708· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-03 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding related litigation and in its jury instructions and interrogatories, thus affirming the judgment.
• Truman v. Louie L. Wainwright
  514 F.2d 150· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state trial court's limitations on defense cross-examination and refusal to allow a witness to be called out of order did not violate federal constitutional standards, thus denying a writ of habeas corpus was proper.
• United States v. Napoleon Pollard and Robert Perry Herman
  509 F.2d 601· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of confessions and evidence of prior similar acts was proper, and that the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.
• United States v. Fleming
  504 F.2d 1045· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that multiple sentences for a single bank robbery under different subsections of the Federal Bank Robbery Act are improper, and that placing multiple lives in jeopardy during one robbery constitutes only one offense under § 2113(d).
• United States v. Perez
  493 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Stephens
  492 F.2d 1367· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a conspiracy conviction, proper admission of evidence, and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on witness testimony and discovery.
• Gissendanner v. Louie L. Wainwright
  482 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that petitioners lacked standing to challenge a suppressed confession that was not used against them, and that their identification was not the fruit of that confession. The court also found that other claims lacked merit or did not rise to constitutional dimension
• United States v. Freed
  460 F.2d 75· 10th Cir.· 1972-05-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to report for induction was not excused by his claims regarding medical conditions or non-receipt of orders, and that the admission of his selective service file and jury instructions were proper.
• United States ex rel. Robert Duff v. Zelker
  452 F.2d 1009· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-27 ·cited 22×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
• Gaines v. Craven
  448 F.2d 1236· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-27 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the police officer's actions, including the initial stop and entry into the apartment, were constitutionally permissible, and any error regarding cross-examination was harmless.
• United States v. Woodring
  446 F.2d 733· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the pretrial identification procedures, the defendant's admissions, the prosecution's opening statement, and the removal hearing procedures did not deny the defendant due process or violate any rules of criminal procedure.
• Warren v. United States
  447 F.2d 259· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of the sawed-off shotgun and documentary evidence of non-registration was proper, and the prosecution did not violate the appellant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. MIX
  446 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the statute was constitutional, the search was valid based on consent, the defendant's statements were admissible after Miranda warnings, and the IRS certificate was admissible as an official record.
• Powers v. United States
  446 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate a sentence if their allegations, if proven, would entitle them to relief.
• Zebedee Johnson v. State
  249 So. 2d 470· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-06-15 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  Johnson was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed, finding reversible error in the trial court's admission of ballistics expert testimony when the State lost the fatal bullet, thereby depriving John
• United States v. Filippo Sacco aka John Rosselli
  428 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a marriage entered into solely to legitimate a child, without intent to live as spouses, is not a valid marriage for federal immigration purposes, and thus cannot confer derivative citizenship. The court also affirmed the conviction for alien registration viol
• Tyler v. Swenson
  427 F.2d 412· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  A state court evidentiary hearing is not fair when the judge who presided over the original plea also acts as the trier of fact, relying on his own recollection of events that are disputed by the petitioner and cannot be cross-examined.
• United States v. Ballentine
  410 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a co-defendant's prior out-of-court statement, which inculpated the defendant, was admissible for impeachment purposes when the co-defendant testified and was subject to cross-examination. The court also held that the failure to request limiting instructions b
• Bearden v. United States
  403 F.2d 782· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the jury's observation of a co-defendant's guilty plea and the judge's comment on it in the jury charge, while not ideal, did not constitute reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the lack of demonstrable unfairness.
• United States v. Beltram
  388 F.2d 449· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-22 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that indictments based on hearsay testimony are permissible and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of appellant Colon.
• Kemp v. Gov't of Canal Zone
  167 F.2d 938· 5th Cir.· 1948-05-15 ·cited 22×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the jury instructions regarding extenuating circumstances were erroneous, the defendant waived his right to confrontation by not objecting, and the appellate court could modify the sentence.
• McDONALD v. Hudspeth
  129 F.2d 196· 10th Cir.· 1942-06-17 ·cited 22×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that the failure to perfect an appeal is not grounds for habeas corpus relief, and the sentence imposed was not excessive as each count charged a distinct offense.
• McLEAN v. State
  754 So. 2d 176· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-04-05 ·cited 21×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Daniel McLean was convicted of kidnapping and three counts of sexual battery for his role in a joint assault with Jason Rancourt. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction for kidnapping and all sexual battery convictions, finding insufficient evidence for kidna
• United States v. Sherrod
  964 F.2d 1501· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 21×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the destruction of evidence did not violate due process, the district court's drug quantity findings were not clearly erroneous, and the DEA had the authority to schedule P2P.
• United States v. Johnson
  935 F.2d 47· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 21×
  An ex parte presentence conference between a court and a probation officer is not a critical stage of sentencing proceedings, and thus does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel or confrontation.
• United States v. Martin
  897 F.2d 1368· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the defendant's prior criminal acts was improper and violated the Confrontation Clause, and that this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Prantil
  764 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to recuse the prosecutor, who was a material witness, and that the prosecutor's summation contained prejudicial misconduct. The court also held that the defendant's statements regarding an
• Proffitt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  756 F.2d 1500· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 21×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prior panel's opinion did not implicitly require resentencing by a jury, and the petitioner's claim regarding jury instructions on mitigating circumstances is barred by procedural default.
• United States v. White
  671 F.2d 1126· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 21×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination, admitting personal tax returns, or in its jury instructions, and that the statute of limitations did not bar the charges.
• United States v. Hirst
  668 F.2d 1180· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination, in its jury instructions, or in denying severance or a new trial, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Webster Williams
  626 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to strike the co-defendant's testimony was not reversible error, and that the identification procedures, search of the vehicle, and supplemental jury instruction were proper.
• United States v. Goldstein
  532 F.2d 1305· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the telephone company's investigation and subsequent search warrant were lawful, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
• United States ex rel. Ronald James Dessus v. Commonwealth of Pa.
  452 F.2d 557· 3d Cir.· 1971-11-29 ·cited 21×
  Federal courts lack habeas corpus jurisdiction for a petitioner not in custody, and the denial of funds for a defense psychologist was within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Ahmed
  73 F.4th 1363· 11th Cir.· 2023-07-13 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the district court's rulings regarding COVID-19 concerns, evidentiary matters, or prosecutorial conduct.
• Ivana Linic v. State
  80 So. 3d 382· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-02-08 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  Ivana Linic was convicted of culpable negligence child neglect causing serious bodily injury after her premature infant son died of malnutrition and dehydration. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding multiple evidentiary errors and imp
• Sproule v. State
  927 So. 2d 46· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-29 ·cited 20×
  Gary Sproule was convicted of Habitual Driving While License Revoked and challenged the admission of his driving record as hearsay and a violation of his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holdin
• Barows v. State
  805 So. 2d 120· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-01-23 ·cited 20×
  David Barows was convicted of robbery and appealed, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding a potential civil forfeiture action against the victim's property. The court held that the trial judge abused its discretion by preventing cross-examination on this i
• United States v. Tardiff
  969 F.2d 1283· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a defendant waives the right to complain about lack of an evidentiary hearing or continuance if not requested, and the Confrontation Clause does not typically apply at sentencing.
• United States v. Brooks
  957 F.2d 1138· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but vacated one defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice and remanded for resentencing.
• British Robinson v. State
  575 So. 2d 699· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-02-06 ·cited 20×
  British Robinson appeals his convictions for sexual battery and aggravated assault, challenging the trial court's application of Florida's Rape Shield Law to exclude evidence of the victim's reputation as a prostitute. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that while such e