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 ex rel. George Dukes v. Wallack
  414 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-25 ·cited 14×
  The admission of co-defendants' confessions was not a Sixth Amendment violation, and the appellant's confession was admissible.
• United States v. Gregg
  414 F.2d 943· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-26 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while certain identification procedures and confession admissions were constitutionally questionable, they constituted harmless error due to the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• Goitia v. United States
  409 F.2d 524· 1st Cir.· 1969-04-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in continuing the trial in absentia, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel or reversible error in the presentation of the government's case.
• United States v. Jackson
  409 F.2d 8· 6th Cir.· 1969-04-11 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for severance, as the co-defendant's testimony was given in court, allowing for confrontation and cross-examination.
• United States ex rel. Edward F. LaBELLE v. Hon. Vincent Mancusi
  404 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-03 ·cited 14×
  The admission of a co-defendant's redacted confession, even with limiting instructions, violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and requires reversal of the conviction.
• Schneble v. State
  215 So. 2d 611· Fla.· 1968-11-13 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court following Bruton v. United States, the Florida Supreme Court reconsidered the murder convictions of Schneble and Snell. The court reversed Snell's conviction due to the admission of Schneble's confession at their joint trial, but affirmed Sch
• United States v. Hoffa
  402 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1968-08-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose certain reports and its alleged tailoring of evidence based on an illegally overheard conversation warranted reversal.
• United States v. Collier
  362 F.2d 135· 7th Cir.· 1966-06-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that entrapment was not established as a matter of law, and that the defendant's claims of juror misconduct, denial of confrontation rights, and denial of speedy trial were without merit.
• United States v. Rosenblum
  339 F.2d 473· 2d Cir.· 1964-12-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the mail fraud statute applies to misleading advertising schemes and that the trial court properly admitted evidence and considered the defendant's failure to testify.
• Wilmer T. Dixon v. United States
  333 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that denying the defendant the right to cross-examine a witness recalled by the judge after jury deliberations had begun, when the witness provided new testimony relevant to the case, was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Snead v. United States
  217 F.2d 912· 4th Cir.· 1954-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that admitting evidence of an individual's bad reputation to prove they committed a crime in a civil forfeiture case constitutes reversible error.
• Insul-Wool Insulation Corp. v. Home Insulation, Inc.
  176 F.2d 502· 10th Cir.· 1949-07-25 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that depositions from a prior suit were admissible to prove prior knowledge and use, and that the patent was invalid due to prior public use and sale more than two years before the first patent application.
• Schita v. King
  133 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1943-02-15 ·cited 14×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition, as the allegations, if true, could demonstrate a denial of due process.
• United States v. Johnson
  129 F.2d 954· 3d Cir.· 1942-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant's exclusion from a courtroom during a legal argument, when the jury is absent, is not reversible error if it does not prejudice the defendant's opportunity to defend. The court also held that questions about income in years subsequent to the indict
• Shennett v. State
  937 So. 2d 287· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-09-13 ·cited 13×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Jermaine Shennett's convictions for attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools because the trial court admitted inadmissible testimonial hearsay in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washin
• Zuluaga v. State
  915 So. 2d 1251· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-12-21 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  Giovanni Zuluaga was convicted of trafficking in Ecstasy following a jury trial. He appealed claiming error in the admission of hearsay evidence, improper credibility bolstering of an informant, and improper closing argument. The court affirmed the conviction, finding any evident
• State v. Roberson
  884 So. 2d 976· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-09-17 ·cited 13×
  Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a criminal defendant charged with sex crimes could obtain pre-trial discovery of the alleged victim's mental health records. The court held that while Baker Act commitment records are subject to in camera inspection under
• Pomeranz v. State
  634 So. 2d 1145· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-04-13 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  A trial court abuses its discretion by unreasonably restricting cross-examination of a codefendant witness regarding separate criminal charges that create a motive to adjust testimony, and by preventing inquiry into an eyewitness's potential motive to fabricate.
• State v. Camejo
  641 So. 2d 109· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-03-25 ·cited 13×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal quashed a trial court order compelling a sexual battery victim to undergo a psychological examination. The court held that absent strong and compelling evidence, trial courts lack practical authority to compel victims to submit to psycho
• United States v. Williams
  963 F.2d 1337· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding a due process violation based on the referral to federal prosecution and improperly departed from sentencing guidelines. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of juven
• United States v. Taylor
  931 F.2d 842· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 13×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Taylor's probation sentence and re-sentence him while he was in the custody of the Attorney General and under the supervision of the U.S. Parole Commission.
• United States v. Charles Hughes (88-1658)
  895 F.2d 1135· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the defendants' convictions for their roles in a fraudulent medical clinic's operation, affirming the district court's judgments.
• United States v. Valentin Eufracio-Torres
  890 F.2d 266· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting deposition testimony of unavailable witnesses and prior convictions for illegal entry, as the government made reasonable efforts to secure attendance and the prior convictions were relevant to knowledge.
• United States v. Gallo
  863 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 13×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed all judgments of conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or procedural matters.
• United States v. Wilmer
  799 F.2d 495· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal rules of evidence apply in prosecutions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, and that the admission of the breathalyzer calibration report was harmless error. The court also found sufficient evidence that the defendant was driving.
• United States v. Atwell
  766 F.2d 416· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of uncharged crimes, and that no Brady violation occurred as the issue was not preserved.
• United States v. Caputo
  758 F.2d 944· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 13×
  The majority's holding that the Confrontation Clause requires a showing of co-conspirator unavailability before their statements are admissible is an unwarranted extension of precedent.
• United States v. Harley
  682 F.2d 1018· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in sustaining the government's objection to revealing the exact location of the surveillance post, as the surveillance location privilege applies at trial and Harley failed to demonstrate a sufficient need for the information.
• United States v. Colacurcio
  514 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 13×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on specific amounts of payments received from a third party based on collateral estoppel, and in admitting the appellant's 1965 tax return in conjunction with that improper instruction.
• United States ex rel. Joel Smith v. Montanye
  505 F.2d 1355· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state judicial remedies and because the grounds alleged did not properly raise a constitutional issue.
• Bates v. Nelson
  485 F.2d 90· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendant statements in violation of Bruton v. United States and the admission of prior convictions invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright were harmless errors beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus pe
• Holley v. State
  48 So. 3d 916· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-11-17 ·cited 12×
  Norman Lanel Holley appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a firearm by an adjudicated delinquent. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly limiting
• Lidiano v. State
  967 So. 2d 972· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-10-24 ·cited 12×
  Roberto Lidiano appeals his convictions for two counts of attempted second-degree murder, challenging the trial court's denial of a peremptory challenge to juror Emelia Abadin and denials of his motions for mistrial based on alleged hearsay testimony by Detective Elosegui. The co
• W.C. v. Smith
  898 So. 2d 1137· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-03-31 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  A juvenile is entitled to habeas corpus relief if not afforded due process rights in an indirect criminal contempt proceeding.
• Gardiner S. Somervell v. State
  883 So. 2d 836· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-07-30 ·cited 12×
  Gardiner Somervell appeals his conviction for attempted lewd and lascivious conduct with an 8-year-old, arguing that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated by the admission of hearsay statements from child victims. The court affirms, holding that while one stateme
• State v. Eusebio Hernandez
  875 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in suppressing the co-defendant's out-of-court statements, as their admission would violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
• Colina v. State
  634 So. 2d 1077· Fla.· 1994-04-07 ·cited 12×
  Manuel Colina appeals his death sentence imposed upon resentencing following a prior conviction reversal for murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death penalty, addressing claims regarding witness confrontation, heinous/atrocious/cruel murder findings, and comparative se
• Hallman v. State
  633 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-02-22 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Richard Hallman appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine after police conducted a controlled delivery operation following the interception of a drug transaction. The Third District affirms the convictions, finding that although the t
• United States v. Saks
  964 F.2d 1514· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) for obtaining money by false pretenses, not § 1344(1) for defrauding a financial institution.
• Lufkins v. Leapley
  965 F.2d 1477· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The admission of witness statements, even if their cross-examination was ineffective, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant's confession and other corroborating evidence were overwhelming.
• Hernandez v. State
  597 So. 2d 408· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-04-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allowing child witnesses to testify via closed-circuit television did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights, as the procedure was necessary to prevent severe emotional harm and ensured testimony reliability.
• Cook v. State
  595 So. 2d 994· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-03 ·cited 12×
  Rodney Cook was convicted of first-degree murder in a joint trial with co-defendant Tapia. The appellate court reversed his conviction and sentence, finding that the trial court violated Cook's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by admitting incriminating statements from the no
• United States v. Carland A. Bowser
  941 F.2d 1019· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 12×
  A downward departure from career offender status based on age and timing of prior offenses is not justified when these factors were adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
• United States v. Gomez-Lemos
  939 F.2d 326· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that under prior Sixth Circuit precedent, grand jury testimony of unavailable witnesses may be admissible if it possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, even without a finding of waiver by the defendant.
• Francesco Polizzi v. United States
  926 F.2d 1311· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant's right to be present at trial can be waived, and such waiver can be established through counsel and the court's own recollection, even if not explicitly recorded, provided it is knowing and voluntary.
• United States v. Houtchens
  926 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 12×
  A defendant may be tried in absentia if, after sufficient notice, they knowingly and voluntarily fail to appear for trial. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not addressed on direct appeal. A district judge's statement that disputed sentencing facts do not affect the se
• United States v. Lowrimore
  923 F.2d 590· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the sentencing procedure violated the Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
• Lewis v. State
  570 So. 2d 412· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-11-21 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Cornelius Ray Lewis was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and five counts of sexual activity with a child under 18 while in a position of custodial authority. On appeal, Lewis challenged the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regardin
• Clark v. State
  572 So. 2d 929· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-11-15 ·cited 12×
  Clark appeals his convictions for armed burglary and grand theft, challenging the trial court's admission of a discovery deposition as substantive evidence and the imposition of departure sentences. The court held that admission of the discovery deposition violated his Sixth Amen
• United States v. Mayes
  917 F.2d 457· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' claims regarding delays, severance, discovery, witness subpoenas, pro se representation, admissibility of recordings, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing guidelines were without merit.