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. Penn
  721 F.2d 762· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay evidence in a probation revocation proceeding was permissible when it was reliable and there was good cause for not allowing confrontation, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation based on this evide
• United States v. Balliviero
  708 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or excluding evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Perez
  702 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the co-conspirator's out-of-court statement was admissible hearsay and that sufficient independent evidence linked the appellant to the conspiracy, thus rejecting claims of hearsay and confrontation clause violations.
• United States v. Walker
  696 F.2d 277· 4th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly admitted a portion of an unavailable witness's grand jury testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), and any error in excluding other portions was harmless.
• Elva Rubio v. Estelle
  689 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated during her state trial, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
• United States v. Washington
  688 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the refusal to instruct the jury on the defendant's theory of defense, that merely receiving unsolicited gifts is not a crime, was reversible error.
• United States ex rel. Leon Blackwell v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court's limitation on cross-examination, while close, did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because defense counsel had sufficient alternative means to impeach the witness. The court also affirmed the district court'
• United States v. Rodriguez-DeMAYA
  674 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made in compliance with Rule 11, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
• Ivory Davis v. Franzen
  671 F.2d 1056· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 18×
  A federal court may deny a habeas corpus petition without ordering a response if the petition, on its face, fails to allege facts showing a constitutional violation.
• State v. Snell
  391 So. 2d 299· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-12-10 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida appeals a trial court's order suppressing evidence of a firearm in a felon-in-possession case after the state lost the weapon due to inadvertence. The appellate court quashes the suppression order and remands, holding that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquir
• United States v. Yukio Uramoto
  638 F.2d 84· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court erred in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding prior threats made by the witness, as this limitation impermissibly denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses.
• United States v. Vandetti
  623 F.2d 1144· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting evidence of codefendants' prior convictions was prejudicial error, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Stone
  604 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that explanatory statements in an authenticating affidavit, when the affiant does not testify, constitute inadmissible hearsay and violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but such errors can be harmless if other evidence overwhelmingly supports the conv
• United States v. Adelle Ray White
  572 F.2d 1007· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-28 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  A district court's failure to comply with the formal requirements of Rule 11(c)(5) is not grounds for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice.
• Learie Leo Alford v. State
  355 So. 2d 108· Fla.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  A sentencing judge may be made aware of information from a pre-sentence report without unconstitutionally considering it in imposing a death sentence if the judge's discretion is properly guided and channeled by statute and does not factually rely on the undisclosed material.
• Blackwell v. Lou V. Brewer
  562 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's absence from the courtroom during the interrogation of the jury amounted to harmless error, and that the issue of waiver was not resolved.
• United States v. Seymour Rosenwasser
  550 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance or admitting testimony of a subsequent similar offense by a co-defendant, nor in refusing to allow cross-examination of a government agent.
• Bond v. State OF Okla.
  546 F.2d 1369· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, while constitutional error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. Other claims regarding improper conviction, denial of hearings, severance, and prejudicial ev
• United States v. Mathis
  550 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting prior testimony of an unavailable witness and in using a witness's statement from a guilty plea for impeachment.
• United States v. Croucher
  532 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that restricting cross-examination of a key government witness regarding prior arrests, which could demonstrate bias or pressure, violates the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Smith v. State
  318 So. 2d 506· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-09-05 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Where a confidential informant is an active participant in setting up an illegal drug sale, the informer privilege must yield to the defendant's right to identify and confront the informant as a material witness essential to a fair determination of the cause.
• Smith v. State
  305 So. 2d 868· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-01-14 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was not denied by the state's failure to produce the stolen property when the defense did not demonstrate prejudice and filed a motion to produce late. The court also held that the state sufficiently proved
• Hanks v. State
  305 So. 2d 817· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-12-31 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance or a judgment of acquittal, and that the in-court identification was not tainted by pretrial procedures.
• Woodcock v. Amlaral
  511 F.2d 985· 1st Cir.· 1974-12-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's various claims, including Brady violations, insufficient indictment, denial of severance, improper prosecution mode, and ex post facto law application, did not warrant reversal of the habeas corpus petition dismissal.
• United States v. Tatum
  496 F.2d 1282· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 18×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The government has no duty to produce informers as witnesses, and a continuance is not required when the defendant does not request it.
• Stansel v. State
  297 So. 2d 63· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-06-18 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Petitioner Stansel challenged a $500,000 bond reduction in a marijuana conspiracy case on grounds that the trial court improperly considered secret in camera testimony from an undisclosed state witness. The appellate court held that such secret evidence violates fundamental confr
• Collins v. Buchkoe
  493 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while sentencing judges may consider unsworn information, due process requires an opportunity to rebut materially false information relied upon for sentencing.
• Glinsey v. Parker
  491 F.2d 337· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions, even with limiting instructions, violated the confrontation clause unless the statements were adopted by the defendant or the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Silence in custody does not constitute adop
• Pizzo v. State
  289 So. 2d 26· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-01-30 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of fingerprint evidence was proper, despite the State's failure to produce it prior to trial, because the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Dority
  487 F.2d 846· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-04 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the FBI agent did not violate appellant's constitutional rights by questioning him without his state-appointed counsel present, and any potential Bruton violation was harmless error.
• United States v. Small
  443 F.2d 497· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 18×
  The admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence, after the witness repudiated it at trial and was available for cross-examination, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Smalls
  438 F.2d 711· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-22 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial and affirmed his conviction.
• Metropolis v. Turner
  437 F.2d 207· 10th Cir.· 1971-01-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus and discharging the petitioners because the Bruton rule was either inapplicable or the violation was harmless error.
• Weldon Burris v. United States
  430 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in summarily denying the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence, as the allegations were either contradicted by the record, resolvable by the judge's personal knowledge, or lacked sufficient specificity to warrant an evidenti
• United States ex rel. Robert James Long v. Pate
  418 F.2d 1028· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court properly denied the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief for both the 1953 and 1963 convictions.
• The Reverend Henry Hale Bucher, Jr. v. Selective Serv. Sys.
  421 F.2d 24· 3d Cir.· 1970-01-02 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that pre-induction judicial review of draft reclassifications is generally barred by statute, except in cases where a registrant is denied a statutory exemption or faces punishment without due process.
• Buie v. United States
  420 F.2d 1207· 5th Cir.· 1969-12-23 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for mail and securities fraud was supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• Davis v. Sigler
  415 F.2d 1159· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-16 ·cited 18×
  The admission of codefendants' confessions in a joint trial, even with limiting instructions, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the confessions powerfully incriminate the defendant.
• West v. Henderson
  409 F.2d 95· 6th Cir.· 1969-04-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prosecutor's use of a co-defendant's confession, despite cautionary instructions, violated the appellant's due process rights by denying him a fair trial.
• Thompson v. United States
  403 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting reputation testimony, denying a mistrial, denying acquittal, or in its ruling on the constitutionality of the statute.
• Ennis v. State
  95 So. 2d 20· Fla.· 1957-03-27 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  Carlos Ennis was convicted of issuing a worthless check in violation of Florida Statute § 832.05. On appeal, he challenged the constitutionality of the statute, claiming it violated his right to confront witnesses and amounted to unconstitutional imprisonment for debt. The Florid
• Hyun v. Landon
  219 F.2d 404· 9th Cir.· 1955-01-31 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant was not denied due process during deportation proceedings, and the deportation order was supported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. Nugent
  200 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1952-11-10 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the statute requires disclosure of the FBI investigative report to the registrant before or at the hearing.
• Ex parte Zimmerman. Zimmerman v. Walker
  132 F.2d 442· 9th Cir.· 1942-12-14 ·cited 18×·via Right To Confrontation
  The denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper because the privilege of the writ was lawfully suspended due to invasion and the petition did not demonstrate entitlement to relief.
• MAY v. Collins
  955 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 17×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court granted the certificate of probable cause to appeal, finding the issue debatable among jurists of reason, but ultimately affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, holding the state court's 'paper hearing' was adequate for § 2254(d) presumption of correctness.
• United States v. Lucas
  932 F.2d 1210· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 17×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, except for specific sentencing enhancements on certain counts, which were vacated and remanded for resentencing.
• Tapia v. Tansy
  926 F.2d 1554· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the loss of preliminary hearing tapes, the sealing of an affidavit, the submission of a second-degree murder instruction on an accessory theory, the admission of allegedly perjured testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel did not violate the defendant'
• Norris v. Risley
  918 F.2d 828· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 17×·via Right To Confrontation
  The presence of spectators wearing buttons that conveyed an implied message of guilt, without being subject to confrontation or cross-examination, created an unacceptable risk of prejudice, thus denying the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Sensi
  879 F.2d 888· D.C. Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the indictment was valid under the extradition treaty and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Hardin v. Black
  845 F.2d 953· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying a procedural bar to seventeen claims, which must be reconsidered on the merits, and affirmed the denial of other claims.