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

• Dezso John Lokos v. Capps
  528 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-12 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the petitioner's habeas corpus claims, requiring remand for further proceedings on those claims. The court affirmed the denial of relief on the involuntary confession claim.
• Artis v. The United States
  506 F.2d 1387· Ct. Cl.· 1974-12-18 ·cited 16×
  A plaintiff must exhaust all available administrative and military remedies under 10 U.S.C. § 869 before filing suit in a civilian court to challenge a court-martial conviction.
• Ira C. Chapman v. State
  302 So. 2d 136· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-10-09 ·cited 16×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Chapman was convicted of rape and sentenced to 75 years in prison. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court violated Chapman's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by allowing a deposition taken in his inv
• Radcliff v. Park Anderson
  509 F.2d 1093· 10th Cir.· 1974-06-14 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
• Alexander v. State
  288 So. 2d 538· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-01-08 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  Andrew Alexander was convicted of unlawful heroin possession following a non-jury trial where the State marked heroin packets for identification but never actually introduced them into evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the corpus delicti of dru
• Hill v. Nelson
  466 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  A federal court may not presume the correctness of state court factual findings unless they are written findings from the trial court, not merely statements in an appellate opinion.
• Close v. United States
  450 F.2d 152· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' oral confessions was harmless error for the armed bank robbery convictions but required reversal for the interstate transportation of stolen property conviction.
• Abe Lincoln v. The Cal. Adult Auth.
  435 F.2d 133· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-30 ·cited 16×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that the appellant's allegations did not present a substantial constitutional question, thus a three-judge court was not required and the dismissal was proper.
• United States v. Spencer
  415 F.2d 1301· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for selling heroin was valid, rejecting claims regarding insufficient evidence, improper hearsay, failure to call a witness, and self-incrimination.
• Cockrell v. Oberhauser
  413 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-06 ·cited 16×
  The admission of a codefendant's confession implicating Leroy, and Leroy's silence in response, violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bruton rule does not apply to bench trials, so Ivy's confrontation claim fa
• Rios-Ramirez v. United States
  403 F.2d 1016· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statements at a joint trial does not violate the confrontation clause if the codefendant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.
• United States v. Gilmore
  398 F.2d 679· 7th Cir.· 1968-07-25 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
• Robbins v. Small
  371 F.2d 793· 1st Cir.· 1967-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prosecutor's use of leading questions based on a witness's inadmissible statement, which the witness refused to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not cured by jury instructions.
• Holman v. Caliph Washington
  364 F.2d 618· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-08 ·cited 16×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of prior trial testimony of an absent witness, without a proper predicate showing diligent search and unavailability, violated the petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court reversed the district court's finding regarding the c
• Dickens v. State
  165 So. 2d 811· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-06-24 ·cited 16×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  Oliver Dickens appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion, challenging three 1946 guilty plea convictions for breaking and entering entered when he was 17, unrepresented, and without parental knowledge. The court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discreti
• Dixon v. United States
  211 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a search warrant is not invalid due to a four-day lapse between the observed offense and the warrant's execution, nor because the affiant's name might be fictitious, nor because the owner was not named.
• In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code
  144 So. 3d 536· Fla.· 2014-07-10 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court considered whether to adopt three recent legislative amendments to the Florida Evidence Code and related statutes. The Court adopted one amendment concerning hearsay exceptions but declined to adopt two others regarding fiduciary lawyer-client privilege
• Etavius Carlyle v. State
  945 So. 2d 540· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-11-29 ·cited 15×
  Etavius Carlyle appeals his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and four counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or force causing injury. The appellate court affirmed his convictions, rejecting his arguments that three sexual battery counts should have been dismi
• Russell v. State
  920 So. 2d 683· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-01-20 ·cited 15×
  Anthony Russell's probation was revoked based on battery charges against his pregnant girlfriend. Russell appealed on hearsay and Sixth Amendment confrontation grounds, arguing that victim statements should have been inadmissible. The Fifth District affirmed the revocation, holdi
• Perry v. State
  842 So. 2d 301· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-04-17 ·cited 15×·via Right To Confrontation
  A court may revoke pretrial release and order detention based solely on a probable cause affidavit for a new crime, consistent with section 903.0471, Florida Statutes.
• United States v. George
  960 F.2d 97· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 15×
  The admission of hearsay statements made by a child victim to her examining physician and a tribal investigator did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the denial of a new trial based on the victim's recantation was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Miller
  830 F.2d 1073· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3292 can be applied to suspend the statute of limitations even after foreign evidence has been recovered, and that 18 U.S.C. § 3505 is constitutional as applied to admit certified foreign bank records.
• Joyner v. United States
  547 F.2d 1199· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a co-defendant's prior inconsistent statements, though generally inadmissible as substantive evidence, can be admitted as substantive evidence against another defendant if they fall under the coconspirator rule. The court also held that the issue of entrapment
• In re Letter Rogatory From the Just. Court
  523 F.2d 562· 6th Cir.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 15×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 applies to documentary evidence sought for use in a foreign criminal proceeding and that the appellant has standing to challenge the subpoena.
• Loftis v. Beto
  450 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-08 ·cited 15×
  The court held that even if the co-defendant's guilty plea before the jury violated the petitioner's confrontation rights, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Fort
  443 F.2d 670· D.C. Cir.· 1970-12-14 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the conviction for contempt of Congress, holding that the statute is constitutional and that the appellant was not denied any constitutionally protected rights during the investigation.
• Mitchell v. United States
  434 F.2d 230· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant waived objections to the jury verdict's omission of a count and the indictment's duplicity by failing to raise them at trial. The court also found no merit in other assignments of error.
• United States v. Douglas
  155 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1946-06-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that submitting affidavits containing the government's proof to the jury, even with an instruction that the information was not evidence, constituted reversible error.
• Lee v. State
  115 Fla. 30· Fla.· 1934-05-25 ·cited 15×·via Right To Confrontation
  Edward Lee and Ray Kirby were convicted of first-degree murder in the 1932 killing of Orlo Brown. The Florida Supreme Court reversed their convictions, finding that the State's failure to disclose the names of key witnesses (who were themselves co-defendants and confessed partici
• Katlein v. State of Fla. & Jeffrey Weaver
  731 So. 2d 87· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-04-07 ·cited 14×
  Petitioner Katlein, a prosecution witness in a murder case, sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring disclosure of his mental health and substance abuse treatment records from jail to the defendant Weaver. The court held that merely volunteering as a witness does
• Harrell v. State
  689 So. 2d 400· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-03-05 ·cited 14×
  David Harrell was convicted of robbery, burglary, and assault based partly on live satellite testimony from two victims testifying from Argentina. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that satellite testimony does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Cl
• United States v. Figueroa
  976 F.2d 1446· 1st Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the denial of severance motions, evidentiary rulings, or the admission of tape transcripts and background hearsay.
• United States v. Concemi
  957 F.2d 942· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error in the trial court's rulings regarding jury instructions, evidence exclusion, Fifth Amendment privilege, subpoena quashing, sufficiency of evidence, or denial of a continuance.
• United States v. Aguilar
  948 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by limitations on cross-examination.
• United States v. Ellzey
  936 F.2d 492· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that restricting cross-examination of a witness regarding pending state charges was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause, and that prosecutorial misconduct and the giving of an Allen instruction did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Partap Singh
  922 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and that the defendants' temporary exclusion from a hearing did not violate their confrontation clause rights. The evidence was also found sufficient to support the convic
• United States v. Benitez
  920 F.2d 1080· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of redacted codefendant statements, the denial of severance, and the sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Thunder
  893 F.2d 950· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed convictions for kidnapping and sexual abuse but vacated the sentence for sexual abuse due to material misinformation regarding abduction, remanding for resentencing.
• United States v. Oliyinka Sobamowo
  892 F.2d 90· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that wiretap evidence was admissible, the evidence was sufficient for conspiracy convictions, and various procedural and instructional errors were either harmless or did not occur.
• United States v. Bear
  883 F.2d 1382· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the merger of assault and homicide charges, the limitations on cross-examination of a witness, and prosecutorial arguments during closing did not constitute plain error. The court also rejected various other claims of error.
• United States v. Castellanos
  882 F.2d 474· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a sentencing judge cannot rely on evidence from a co-defendant's trial to determine drug quantity for sentencing purposes if the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
• United States v. Ladd
  877 F.2d 1083· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a hearsay tape was harmless error, but the conviction for receipt of counterfeit currency was reversed because the evidence did not establish possession.
• United States v. Fontanez
  878 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court agrees with the judgment because the government did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation of the defendant's confrontation right was harmless error.
• United States ex rel. Joe L. Ashford v. Dir., Ill. Dep't OF Corr.
  871 F.2d 680· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination regarding the victim's drug use and pending charges, nor in refusing to allow the prosecuting attorney to testify, and that any potential errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Innes v. Dalsheim
  864 F.2d 974· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing and intelligent due to the ambiguity in the trial court's explanation of the consequences of breaching the plea agreement.
• United States v. Vazquez
  857 F.2d 857· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that bringing two suspects together, even with inconsistent prior statements, does not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda unless police actions are designed to elicit an incriminating response. The court also held that newly discovered evidence of a w
• United States v. York
  852 F.2d 221· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting hearsay statements made by a nine-year-old child, testified to by a probation officer, under the residual exception to the hearsay rule (Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5)).
• United States v. Garcia
  836 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's bare assertion of no members of his racial group on the venire panel does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination without proof of disproportionate impact or opportunity for discrimination. It also held that admitting a co-defendant's
• United States v. Stewart
  820 F.2d 370· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 14×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's father's alleged secret agent activities was proper as it was irrelevant to the charges of illegal firearm possession and transfer. The court also found no merit in claims of judic
• United States v. Kurka
  818 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the statute should be read disjunctively, creating two separate prohibited acts with different mens rea requirements.