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. Stackpole
  811 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the convictions of Donald Stackpole and Ray Norton, Jr. for their involvement in an arson conspiracy were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during their trials.
• Vern Leslie Herd v. Kincheloe
  800 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that both the Sandstrom jury instruction error and the Bruton error were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Norris Lee Smith
  794 F.2d 1333· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that admitting an edited confession that distorted the meaning of the original statement, particularly by excluding exculpatory information, constituted plain error.
• Weldon Wells v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.
  793 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 14×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the sufficiency of notice for the administrative hearing, and that the jury's excessive damages award indicated passion or prejudice, requiring a new trial.
• Fuson v. A.R. Jago
  773 F.2d 55· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The admission of a deceased codefendant's custodial confession, which incriminated the petitioner, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the statement did not fall under a valid hearsay exception and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Jones
  766 F.2d 994· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the swearing of an investigative agent as an 'agent of the grand jury' did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or warrant dismissal of the indictment, and that the jury instructions regarding the Enmons defense were proper when viewed in their entirety.
• United States v. Winn
  767 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of appellant's prior conviction and hearsay statements from illegal aliens was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate his constitutional rights.
• United States v. Keithan
  751 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings regarding cross-examination, videotaped depositions, and discovery disclosures.
• Ewing v. Winans
  749 F.2d 607· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's deposition did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the exclusion of the victim's old prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Diez
  736 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, the voir dire and jury instructions were proper, and the admission of a redacted statement and the handling of alleged juror misconduct did not constitute reversible error.
• Bowden v. Francis
  733 F.2d 740· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to order a psychiatric examination for competency, nor did it err in other claims raised by the petitioner.
• Priestly v. State
  450 So. 2d 289· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-05-02 ·cited 14×
  Darrell Priestly Sr. and Jr. appealed convictions for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. The court affirmed their convictions, rejecting arguments regarding admission of a tape recording, failure to introduce physical marijuana evidence, lack of proo
• United States v. Pagan
  721 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of a prior Youth Corrections Act conviction, which had been set aside, required reversal because it was not harmless error and was not admissible to rebut the entrapment defense. The admission of a co-conspirator's taped statement did n
• United States v. Robertson
  698 F.2d 703· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a not guilty plea with a stipulation of facts is functionally similar to a conditional guilty plea for appeal purposes, but Sepe's prohibition should not be extended to this situation.
• United States v. Wood
  695 F.2d 459· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting LSD exhibits, tape recordings, or in limiting cross-examination, and that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause.
• Fowler v. Parratt
  682 F.2d 746· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-09 ·cited 14×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court's denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was proper because the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from any alleged errors, whether considered singly or in conjunction, and failed to establish cause for procedural default
• Bennie E. Demps v. Louie L. Wainwright
  666 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the use of a deposition at trial, even if it violated the Confrontation Clause, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Stubbert
  655 F.2d 453· 1st Cir.· 1981-08-04 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in refusing to strike a co-conspirator's testimony despite the co-conspirator's refusal to name other buyers.
• D. C. v. State
  400 So. 2d 825· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-07-07 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination of state witnesses on issues of bias and credibility.
• United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
  647 F.2d 72· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the government's deportation of alien eyewitnesses violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Ectore Gregorio Garcia
  647 F.2d 794· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 14×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a key government witness, nor in refusing to sever the trial.
• United States v. Winley
  638 F.2d 560· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district judge did not err in declaring a mistrial and that the admission of redacted guilty plea allocutions of unavailable co-conspirators as declarations against interest was proper.
• United States v. Fielding
  630 F.2d 1357· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court declarations of alleged coconspirators, which were narrative or aimed at resolving personal debts rather than furthering the conspiracy's common objectives, violated the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause.
• Passmore v. Estelle
  607 F.2d 662· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 14×
  Ineffective assistance of counsel can be established if the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or if a state official knew or should have known of the deficient representation and failed to act.
• United States v. Caudle
  606 F.2d 451· 4th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendants the right to recross-examine a witness on new matters introduced during redirect examination, violating their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination.
• United States v. Nogueira
  585 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of cross-examination regarding the witness's past conduct and alleged enmity towards a former employer.
• Drayton v. McCALL
  584 F.2d 1208· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-02 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  A federal prisoner granted parole but not yet released is entitled to due process procedural safeguards in a parole rescission hearing, though not necessarily all those required for parole revocation.
• Bedie Thundershield v. Solem
  565 F.2d 1018· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-14 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  A guilty plea is constitutionally valid even if the defendant maintains their innocence, provided the plea is voluntary, intelligent, and supported by a factual basis, and counsel was effective.
• Welcome v. Vincent
  549 F.2d 853· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that refusing to permit defense counsel to cross-examine a witness who had confessed to the same crimes for which the appellant was on trial deprived the appellant of his due process right to a fair trial.
• United States v. Mitchell
  540 F.2d 1163· 3d Cir.· 1976-08-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to a hearing outside the jury's presence on the issue of identification taint, and that counsel's decision to waive the hearing did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Patric M. Graham v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd. & James E. Dow
  530 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-19 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the FAA regulation prohibiting medical certificates for individuals with a history of alcoholism is reasonably related to air safety, and the exemption process did not violate due process.
• United States v. Lemmons
  527 F.2d 662· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a five-day delay in executing a search warrant was reasonable due to the agent's illness, probable cause existed for the arrest, and fingerprint testimony was admissible under the business records exception.
• United States v. Yates
  524 F.2d 1282· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, made while in custody and not denied by the defendant, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Tavares
  512 F.2d 872· 9th Cir.· 1975-02-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that admitting a witness's prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence of guilt, when those statements were not made in a prior judicial proceeding, was reversible error under the orthodox rule.
• United States v. Lomeli-Garnica
  495 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the release of a material witness, as the possibility of prejudice was remote and the witness was not an illegal alien.
• United States v. Ferguson
  498 F.2d 1001· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-16 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the identity of an informant until after his disappearance, and its misleading assurances about his availability, prejudiced the defendant's right to interview and potentially call the informant as a witness, and also preju
• United States v. Cruz
  492 F.2d 217· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Molotov cocktails are 'destructive devices' under the National Firearms Act and that the certificate of non-registration is admissible evidence.
• United States v. Roberts
  483 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the inference of guilty knowledge from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is constitutional and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Moore v. Adm'r, Veterans Admin., Chairman & Comm'rs, United States Civil Serv. Sys.
  475 F.2d 1283· D.C. Cir.· 1973-02-14 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the refusal to call investigators or provide the investigative report did not violate due process or confrontation rights, and substantial evidence supported the removal decision.
• McDONNELL v. United States
  472 F.2d 1153· 8th Cir.· 1973-02-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of prior trial testimony of a witness who claimed memory loss was permissible under hearsay exceptions and did not violate the confrontation clause, as the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at both trials.
• United States v. del Valle-Rojas
  463 F.2d 228· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw a guilty plea, nor was the right of confrontation abridged.
• United States v. Aaron
  457 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-10 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the unintentional, brief delay in producing a second Jencks Act report was harmless error, as the defense counsel made a tactical decision not to use it for impeachment.
• United States ex rel. Jerome Rosenberg v. Mancusi
  445 F.2d 613· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 14×
• Tyler v. Swenson
  440 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1971-04-02 ·cited 14×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice because the appellant had not exhausted available state remedies for his claims regarding pretrial identification and hearsay evidence.
• Angle v. Laird
  429 F.2d 892· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's failure to use available military remedies was not a deliberate bypass, but his counsel's failure to object to a deposition and enter into a stipulation constituted a waiver of confrontation rights, and his defense counsel was constitutionally
• United States v. Sims
  430 F.2d 1089· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-07 ·cited 14×
  A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is not violated when a codefendant's incriminating statement, which implicates the defendant, is used against the codefendant if the codefendant subsequently testifies at trial. A defendant's own confession is admissible if vol
• United States v. Sparano
  422 F.2d 1095· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's living quarters was reasonable as incident to a valid arrest under pre-Chimel standards, and that the jury's potential inference of co-defendants implicating the defendant was too remote to violate the Sixth Amendment confrontatio
• United States v. Blassick
  422 F.2d 652· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence, while improper, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given defense counsel's prior remarks and the court's curative instructions. The court also held that a warrantless search of a locker was permissible under
• Talavera v. State
  227 So. 2d 493· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-10-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  Talavera appeals his robbery conviction and 25-year sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance from his codefendant. The court holds that while a defendant has a constitutional right to compulsory process to call a codefendant as a witness, a seve
• Wade v. Yeager
  415 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-29 ·cited 14×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession in a joint trial does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if the co-defendant testifies and is available for cross-examination, even if the defendant chooses not to cross-examine. An unsigned confession is admissible i