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. Renard Barone
  913 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a defendant's status as a prominent public office holder is not per se impermissible to consider for an upward departure from Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Notrangelo
  909 F.2d 363· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in relying on co-defendants' trial testimony for sentencing adjustments, but did err in departing upward based on prior convictions without analyzing their similarity to the offense of conviction.
• Nelson v. Farrey
  874 F.2d 1222· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 20×
  The admission of T's statements to Dr. McLean did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights because the prosecution demonstrated T's unavailability and the statements' particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Sampson v. State
  541 So. 2d 733· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-04-07 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that prior similar acts evidence was properly admitted, a victim's testimony via closed-circuit television was appropriate, and the admission of certain out-of-court statements did not require reversal.
• United States v. Chapman
  866 F.2d 1326· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's wife's out-of-court statements did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or hearsay rules, and that the assertion of marital privilege did not render the statements inadmissible. The court also found no reversi
• United States v. Hayes
  861 F.2d 1225· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that computer data compilations of tax records, properly authenticated and kept in the ordinary course of business, are admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) even if the IRS is considered law enforcement, provided the authoring employee testifies. The court also held
• United States v. Buford L. Peak & Bennie L. Peak
  856 F.2d 825· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The exclusion of hearsay evidence regarding Bennie Peak's state of mind was harmless error and did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Kusek
  844 F.2d 942· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the admission of wiretap tapes despite a delay in sealing, the exclusion of handwriting exemplars, the establishment of venue, the admission of a spontaneous oral statement, expert testimony on drug jargon, the use of a suppressed t
• United States v. Williams
  837 F.2d 1009· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of 'yellow sheets' was proper as a party admission, and the restriction on cross-examination did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Bayard Spector
  793 F.2d 932· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 20×
  The court should reverse the conviction because the government's contingent agreement with a witness violated due process and the denial of access to the witness's taped diaries improperly restricted cross-examination.
• United States v. Griffin
  778 F.2d 707· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a coconspirator's absence from trial and adjudication of guilt was improper and unfairly prejudicial.
• United States v. Metzger
  778 F.2d 1195· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that evidence seized from the demolished vehicle was admissible, the indictment was sufficient, and certain documents were admissible under hearsay exceptions. However, the court reversed convictions related to the use of an unregistered firearm and making a destru
• United States v. Whitman
  771 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by improperly precluding the appellant from presenting evidence to rebut the government's motive evidence regarding Jack Catain.
• Charles "Red" Warden v. Wyrick
  770 F.2d 112· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-09 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief.
• Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright
  763 F.2d 1390· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's limitations on cross-examination did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that the admission of testimony, despite alleged police misconduct during arrest, was within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. McCALL
  740 F.2d 1331· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the written statement of Neal and the oral testimony of Hernandez regarding Neal's statements were inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 and not exceptions under FRE 803(24) or 804(b)(5).
• United States v. Alfonso
  738 F.2d 369· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements was proper in a bench trial without explicit findings on the record, and that a sentence within statutory limits is generally not subject to appellate review.
• United States v. Reginaldo Rodriguez-Arevalo
  734 F.2d 612· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, and the admission of the sample bale of marijuana was proper.
• United States v. Phelps
  733 F.2d 1464· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the limitations on cross-examination were proper, the reading of the tape summary was harmless error, and the refusal of a jury instruction was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Coachman
  727 F.2d 1293· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession was harmless error, and that consecutive sentences for theft and false claims were permissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Whitt
  718 F.2d 1494· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the voir dire, that the mailings of county warrants were in furtherance of the mail fraud scheme, that sufficient evidence supported the Hobbs Act extortion convictions, and that instructing the jury o
• United States v. Chappell
  698 F.2d 308· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the admission of corporate records and testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Blake v. Roderic H. Katter and Steven R. King
  693 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 20×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that Indiana Code § 34-1-2-2 Second, a five-year statute of limitations for actions against public officers, applies to this § 1983 action, and that claims for speedy trial and excessive force were improperly dismissed.
• United States v. Hans
  684 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding certain checks and ledgers as evidence, finding they were admissible under the Sixth Amendment and Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• Anthony v. United States
  667 F.2d 870· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed Anthony's conviction for unlawful wiretapping and reversed the trial court's order allowing discovery of illegally obtained tapes, finding Sisney had standing to object.
• Morrow v. Wyrick
  646 F.2d 1229· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony from an unavailable witness, who was subject to cross-examination, is constitutionally permissible under the Confrontation Clause, and that other alleged errors were matters of state law not rising to constitut
• Guzzardo v. Bengston
  643 F.2d 1300· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights were not violated by hearsay remarks or opening statement summaries, and the pandering statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore, the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of
• United States v. Ira Keith Witschner
  624 F.2d 840· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of similar crimes, refusing to rule on a motion in limine prior to the defense case, or limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's father's parole status.
• Turner v. Fair
  617 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed if the specific legal theory supporting the constitutional claim was not fairly presented to the state courts.
• United States v. King
  613 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that SSA forms were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and that the defendant's statements did not fall under the 'exculpatory no' doctrine.
• Dunbar v. Harris
  612 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a witness's refusal to answer questions about unrelated drug dealings, even if potentially relevant to credibility, did not require striking his direct testimony when those questions were collateral to the subject of his direct testimony and the defendant was
• United States v. Vasilios
  598 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias, the error was not prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of a subsequent trial for Vasilios, finding that judicial administration concerns outweighed hi
• United States v. Larson
  596 F.2d 759· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen the case for additional testimony, as the motion was untimely and the prosecution would have been prejudiced.
• United States v. Cain
  587 F.2d 678· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding a CB radio transmission was improper and prejudiced the defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Callahan
  551 F.2d 733· 6th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred by preventing the defendant from cross-examining the government's chief witness about prior similar confrontations, which was relevant to the witness's state of mind and the defendant's defense.
• United States v. Shoupe
  548 F.2d 636· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the prosecutor's recitation of a witness's unsworn, out-of-court statements to the jury, even for impeachment or to refresh recollection, constituted a clear abuse of discretion and denied the defendants a fair trial.
• United States v. Drake
  542 F.2d 1020· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 20×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant's contentions regarding trial competency, improper cross-examination, and prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Pattman
  535 F.2d 1062· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the probationer received adequate notice and that the admission of a police report, despite the arresting officer not testifying, was proper in a probation revocation hearing.
• United States v. McGREGOR
  529 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the coins were stolen and that the defendants knew they were stolen, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Stanfield
  521 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge's actions in making the opening statement and commenting on the evidence, as well as admitting unauthenticated transcripts to the jury, constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Liebert
  519 F.2d 542· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the non-filing lists are not statutorily protected from disclosure, their production was unreasonable under Rule 16(b) due to the availability of alternative discovery methods that protect individual privacy.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Vinzant
  522 F.2d 448· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The admission of a codefendant's out-of-court statement, admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights. Prejudicial publicity did not violate the defendant's Fourteenth Amendme
• Park v. H. T. (Tommy) Huff
  493 F.2d 923· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Ragano
  476 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding Rizzo's out-of-court statement, which was not subject to cross-examination, was not harmless error, and that a witness's opinion on the ultimate issue of whether stock was received as payment for services rendered w
• United States v. Brumbaugh
  471 F.2d 1128· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court concurred in the affirmance of the conviction but would have held that prejudice inhered in the bailiff's conduct, obviating the need for the defendant to prove actual prejudice.
• Keeton v. Procunier
  468 F.2d 810· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-19 ·cited 20×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the Adult Authority is immune from damages claims, a prisoner's claim of constitutional rights interference by unidentified state officials warrants further proceedings and opportunity to amend.
• United States v. Miller
  463 F.2d 600· 1st Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that restricting repetitive cross-examination, denying a motion to withdraw counsel due to potential conflict, and proceeding with trial in absentia were all within the trial court's discretion and did not violate defendants' rights.
• United States v. Saletko
  452 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1971-11-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the conviction is affirmed, the increased sentence imposed after reconviction violated due process because the reasons given were not based on objective, post-original sentencing conduct. The sentence exceeding five years was deemed excessive.
• United States v. Fountain
  449 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for kidnapping and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle were supported by sufficient evidence and that no prejudicial errors occurred during the trial. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Lowell M. Birrell
  447 F.2d 1168· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated by the exclusion of cross-examination questions deemed collateral, and that the admission of similar acts evidence and the supplemental jury charge were not erroneous.