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. Crosby
  917 F.2d 362· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  A defendant who voluntarily fails to appear for the commencement of their criminal trial waives the protections of Rule 43 and the right to be present.
• United States v. Cruz
  910 F.2d 1072· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements made after arrest, finding probable cause for the arrest and adequate Miranda warnings. The court also affirmed the admissibility of the unidentified woman's statement as a co-conspira
• Dziurgot v. Luther
  897 F.2d 1222· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 12×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  A district court cannot dismiss a claim of a drug-induced waiver of the right to be present at trial based solely on the judge's personal observation; an evidentiary hearing is required if the allegations are not conclusively contradicted by the record.
• United States v. Reeves
  892 F.2d 1223· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of unrelated solicitations, limiting cross-examination, denying discovery of certain tapes, disqualifying counsel, or in its jury instructions and sentencing departure. The convictions for extortion and cons
• LEE v. McCAUGHTRY
  892 F.2d 1318· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court accusations, offered to show the defendant's response and not for their truth, did not violate the Confrontation Clause, especially with a limiting instruction and prosecutor's argument consistent with that limitation.
• Chambers v. State
  530 So. 2d 452· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-08-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying a motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing, as the grounds for denial were not conclusively supported by the record and a new legal precedent might apply.
• Farrish v. Miss. State Parole Bd.
  836 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Officials who conducted a preliminary parole revocation hearing are absolutely immune from damages, but the Commissioner of Corrections is only entitled to qualified immunity for failing to establish adequate procedures.
• United States v. Rubin
  836 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a witness or in quashing a subpoena for foreign bank records, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and sentence.
• United States v. Bartle
  835 F.2d 646· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for making a false statement to the INS should be affirmed, as there was no material variance between the indictment and the proof, the admission of evidence not disclosed in discovery was permissible, and the trial court did not err
• United States v. Ismaili
  828 F.2d 153· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to depose foreign witnesses, applying a standard of proof to the defendant's request that was significantly higher than that used for government requests.
• United States v. Dempewolf
  817 F.2d 1318· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination, refusing an addict-informer instruction, admitting certain evidence, denying severance, or finding the evidence sufficient to convict.
• Nilsa Ortiz v. Eichler
  794 F.2d 889· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 12×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that Delaware's pre-hearing notice requirements for welfare benefits must be detailed, including calculations and reasons, and that claimants have a right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses under federal regulations.
• United States v. Pendegraph
  791 F.2d 1462· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The admission of a redacted co-defendant's statement was a Bruton violation for armed bank robbery, but harmless error for simple bank robbery, as there was other evidence of guilt for the lesser offense.
• United States v. Coppola
  788 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the co-defendant's out-of-court statements were admissible and did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper.
• United States v. Adams
  785 F.2d 917· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while ex parte conferences between a judge and a witness are unusual and must be carefully conducted, they are permissible in certain circumstances, and in this case, despite some procedural irregularities, the appellants suffered no prejudice.
• Travieso v. State
  480 So. 2d 100· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-10 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Victor Travieso and Manuel Esteban Perez were convicted of trafficking in cannabis in excess of 100 pounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Travieso's conviction due to prosecutorial error (comment on the right to remain silent) and lack of standing ruling, but affir
• Riner v. Owens
  764 F.2d 1253· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The majority holds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause and prejudice to overcome waiver of his Sixth Amendment claim. The dissenting judge would hold that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice and thus the claim should be denied.
• Cornell Fitzpatrick v. Procunier
  750 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief, finding no error in the denial of a continuance, the destruction of evidence, or the failure to produce an informant.
• United States v. Jewell Dean Pickett (83-5252)
  746 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted confession that still allowed the jury to infer the identity of a codefendant violated the Bruton rule, and this error was not harmless as to that codefendant. Other alleged errors were found to be without merit.
• Houser v. State
  456 So. 2d 1265· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-09-26 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Thomas Wayne Houser appeals his convictions for DWI manslaughter and vehicular homicide arising from a single-victim car accident. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to the admission of blood alcohol evidence despite
• United States v. Boone
  738 F.2d 763· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the victim judge was engaged in the performance of her official duties when assaulted, and that the admission of credit card slips did not deny the defendant his Confrontation Rights.
• Wolff v. United States
  737 F.2d 877· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner waived his constitutional claims by failing to raise them at his court-martial, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Koontz v. Glossa
  731 F.2d 365· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that amending the indictment without returning to the grand jury, changing the charge from direct arson to arson for hire, violated the petitioner's due process rights by denying him fair notice of the charges and sufficient time to prepare a defense.
• Barber v. Scully
  731 F.2d 1073· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-04 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit to the speedy trial claim and that any error in admitting state of mind testimony was harmless.
• United States v. Oltrado Michaelangelo Lisotto
  722 F.2d 85· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because sufficient independent evidence established the conspiracy and the defendants' participation, and the declarants were unavailable and their statements reliable.
• United States ex rel. Ronnie Lee Cunningham v. DeROBERTIS
  719 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 12×
  A habeas petitioner cannot claim a violation of another person's Fifth Amendment rights when that person's confession was determined to be voluntary and was not used at the petitioner's trial.
• United States v. Porter
  701 F.2d 1158· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated by the denial of discovery of classified surveillance equipment, the prosecutor's comments, or the warrantless arrest of Brickey, and affirmed the jury convictions.
• United States v. Thompson
  708 F.2d 1294· 8th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the trial court improperly admitted prejudicial lay opinion testimony and hearsay evidence.
• Kirksey v. Jones
  673 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the appellant had not exhausted state remedies for two of his claims and that the one exhausted claim regarding the prosecutor's use of a co-defendant's confession did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• Parisie v. Greer
  671 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the majority's disposition of the case without adequate exploration of premises and ramifications was improper.
• United States v. Brown
  667 F.2d 566· 6th Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed their conviction for income tax evasion.
• United States v. Bruscino
  662 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that extraneous material exposed to the jury did not prejudice the appellants' case.
• United States v. Rogers
  652 F.2d 972· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, severance was not required, and co-defendant statements were admissible, affirming the convictions.
• Nelson v. State
  396 So. 2d 1130· Fla.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
• English v. United States
  620 F.2d 150· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel and that the introduction of a co-defendant's confession did not violate the Bruton rule because the contextual inference of guilt was not compelled.
• Andrews v. State
  372 So. 2d 143· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-06-12 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  Patricia Andrews was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and petty larceny in a joint trial with co-defendant Sublette for the beating death of Louis Broeker during a home invasion. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Andrews' claims that denial of sever
• Passmore v. Estelle
  594 F.2d 115· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state trial court's ruling barring impeachment by prior incarceration did not violate the Sixth Amendment, but the submission of a one-sentence appellate brief constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• United States v. Goins
  593 F.2d 88· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The admission of out-of-court statements made by a deceased witness was proper under the Federal Rules of Evidence and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Montgomery
  582 F.2d 514· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that even if a letter could be admissible under the statement against interest exception, the failure to raise this argument at trial precludes finding error on appeal.
• United States v. Phillips
  575 F.2d 97· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing cross-examination of the defendant on statements made to FBI agents after he requested a lawyer, nor in admitting fingerprint expert testimony, nor in allowing a probation officer to testify regarding a witness's prior i
• Burkhart v. Stoney Lane
  574 F.2d 346· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition without examining the trial record.
• W. B. and G. B. F. v. State
  356 So. 2d 884· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-03-21 ·cited 12×
  Two juveniles were jointly charged with theft of school receipts. The appellate court reversed the adjudication against W.B. due to insufficient evidence (admission of a codefendant's unconfrontable confession), but affirmed the adjudication against G.B.F., holding that Miranda w
• United States v. Williams
  571 F.2d 344· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 12×
  A prior written statement adopted by a witness, even if written by another, is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(5) as recorded recollection if the witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection, and the statement was made or adopted when the matter
• United States v. Mahlon Headid
  565 F.2d 1029· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of accomplices and properly handled other evidentiary matters, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Peden
  556 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statute prohibiting the transport of stolen credit cards was not unconstitutionally vague and that the admission of business records as evidence of fraudulent intent did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
• Augustin R. Bourbois v. United States
  530 F.2d 3· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-16 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government is not required to disclose the identity of an informant who is a mere tipster and not an active participant in the offense charged.
• United States v. Moody
  530 F.2d 809· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-01 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence was not an abuse of discretion, but the district court erred in imposing a mandatory 25-year sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2114.
• Stewart v. Cowan
  528 F.2d 79· 6th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 12×
  The admission of hearsay testimony regarding an FBI ballistics report and anonymous phone calls violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because the prosecution failed to show the unavailability of the declarants and the statements lacked sufficient indicia of rel
• Hernandez-Uribe v. United States
  515 F.2d 20· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that collateral estoppel was properly applied to establish the defendant's alien status based on a prior guilty plea, and the jury instruction reflecting this was not erroneous.
• United States v. Qualls
  500 F.2d 1238· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination of government agents regarding their indictments and in limiting the disclosure of an informant's exact address, as effective cross-examination was otherwise permitted.