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

• Little v. United States
  490 F.2d 686· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-01 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant was not prejudiced by the government's failure to produce the informant at trial, nor by the prosecution's jury selection practices.
• United States v. Perna
  491 F.2d 253· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements implicating the appellant was permissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, even without proof of a formal conspiracy count or the declarant's unavailability.
• United States v. Morris
  485 F.2d 1385· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to re-cross-examine a witness who dies during a recess, especially when the witness's testimony was fully cross-examined and no new matters were introduced on re-direct.
• United States v. Mercado
  469 F.2d 1148· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant was incompetent at the time he committed the acts violating probation, but that he was competent to aid in his defense. The court reversed the probation revocation.
• M'Clary v. Cal. Adult Auth.
  466 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-24 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court should reconsider the habeas corpus petition in light of recent controlling decisions regarding parole revocation procedures.
• United States v. LaBARBERA
  463 F.2d 988· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to dismiss the indictment, limiting cross-examination of a witness for safety reasons, or denying requests for competency examinations, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• Smith v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  457 F.2d 1098· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the denial of all five arguments presented by the petitioner.
• United States v. Rogers
  454 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of the employer's statement on SSS Form 153, even with a facsimile signature, was permissible as a business/official record exception to hearsay, and that the defendant's own statements corroborated this evidence, sufficient to sustain his convic
• United States ex rel. Burton N. Pugach v. Hon. Vincent B. Mancusi
  441 F.2d 1073· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-20 ·cited 12×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the investigatory stratagem used to elicit admissions did not violate the Fifth Amendment and that the admission of a co-defendant's confession did not violate the right of confrontation because the co-defendant testified at trial.
• United States ex rel. William C. Stubbs v. Mancusi
  442 F.2d 561· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-19 ·cited 12×
  The admission of prior testimony from a witness who was not made available for cross-examination at retrial, despite the prosecution's failure to make a good-faith effort to secure his presence, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• United States v. DeFRISCO
  441 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that credit bureau reports were admissible as business records and that the failure to instruct the jury that the indictment was not evidence was not reversible error.
• United States v. Sims
  434 F.2d 258· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusion of a government witness's prior conviction documents was not prejudicial error, and the admission of a co-defendant's redacted statement did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The conviction was affirmed based on untainted counts.
• Trigg v. United States
  430 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of rebuttal testimony, as he waived his right to cross-examine his codefendant and failed to raise the issue on direct appeal.
• State v. Stubbs
  239 So. 2d 241· Fla.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a District Court of Appeal's decision to reverse a rape conviction based on the admission of a co-defendant's confession. The Supreme Court held that admitting a co-defendant's confession is not reversible error if the defendant's own confession
• O'Neil v. Nelson
  422 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, which inculpated the defendant but was denied by the co-defendant when testifying, violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this error was not harmless.
• Collins v. State
  230 So. 2d 711· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-01-26 ·cited 12×
  Robert Collins sought delayed appellate review of his 1964 first-degree murder conviction after his court-appointed counsel failed to timely file a direct appeal. The court treated his petition as an original habeas corpus petition and affirmed the conviction, finding that any co
• Dennis v. State
  214 So. 2d 661· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-10-01 ·cited 12×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Dennis and Palmer were convicted of robbery after a jury trial in Dade County, Florida. On appeal, they challenged the trial court's exclusion of a cross-examination question regarding pending criminal charges against the state's rebuttal witness, claiming a violation of their co
• Barber v. Page
  381 F.2d 479· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state's failure to make any effort to produce a witness constituted a denial of the defendant's right to confrontation.
• United States ex rel. John F. McBRIDE v. Hon. Edward M. FAY
  370 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1966-12-27 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the writ because the petitioner had not yet sought relief in the state courts on his newly raised Sixth Amendment claim.
• State v. LaBRON
  24 So. 3d 715· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-12-23 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's identity in a cocaine delivery case where the defendant claimed entrapment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by ordering disclosure withou
• Pflieger v. State
  952 So. 2d 1251· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-04-11 ·cited 11×
  Annual inspection reports of breath testing instruments are non-testimonial and their admission into evidence does not violate the Confrontation Clause, even without the inspector testifying.
• State v. Abreu
  837 So. 2d 400· Fla.· 2003-01-09 ·cited 11×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that section 90.803(22), Florida Statutes, violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause when applied in criminal proceedings to permit use of a witness's prior testimony without a showing of unavailability. The court affirmed the Fourth Distric
• United States v. Petty
  982 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-07 ·cited 11×
  The dissent argues that the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause require defendants to have the right to confront witnesses at sentencing, especially under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines where factual determinations have a significant impact on the sentence.
• United States v. Soto
  959 F.2d 1181· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's post-arrest statement was harmless error and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also affirmed the sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Butt
  955 F.2d 77· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing regarding the enhancement for interference with justice, agreeing with the government that the district court erred in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines to defendant Butt.
• United States v. Gregorio de Jesus Mares
  940 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession, and that the prosecutor's and judge's actions did not violate the defendants' rights.
• United States v. Burton
  937 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 11×
• Jones v. Dugger
  888 F.2d 1340· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the admission of the child victim's out-of-court statements did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the child testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. The court also held that the defendant's due proces
• United States v. Vontsteen
  872 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 11×
  Invoices mailed after goods were shipped and credit terms finalized do not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for mail fraud, but evidence was sufficient to convict for interstate transportation of stolen property.
• Young v. State
  522 So. 2d 540· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-03-29 ·cited 11×
  Florida appellate court reversed a manslaughter conviction because the trial court improperly restricted cross-examination of the key prosecution witness on matters affecting credibility, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right.
• United States v. Pitocchelli
  830 F.2d 401· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Thomas
  705 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the admission of grand jury testimony from unavailable witnesses was permissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Sixth Amendment, and that the reindictment was timely under the Speedy Trial Act.
• United States v. Faison
  679 F.2d 292· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(4) when admitting prior testimony, and that the Confrontation Clause, not the rule, requires specific findings on witness unavailability.
• United States v. McCALLUM
  677 F.2d 1024· 4th Cir.· 1982-05-05 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the introduction of hearsay evidence, specifically a letter from a community treatment center, during a probation revocation hearing did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
• Brown v. State
  223 So. 2d 337· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-05-13 ·cited 11×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a judge, acting as trier of fact in a bench trial, is not prejudiced by the admission of confessions that would be inadmissible in a jury trial, and that a defendant who retains private counsel waives the right to claim ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Clarington v. State
  314 So. 3d 495· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-01-13 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The remote conduct of a probation violation hearing via audio-video technology, where all participants including the defendant and counsel are in separate locations, does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation or due process when conducted as a tempora
• Blair v. State
  25 So. 3d 46· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-12-04 ·cited 10×
  Douglas Blair was tried for DUI with serious bodily injury but failed to appear on the second day of trial. The trial court proceeded in his absence based on the belief he was voluntarily absenting himself, and a jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of DUI with perso
• Ferrer v. State
  2 So. 3d 1111· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-02-18 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief on most grounds but reversed on the claim that counsel's misadvice about impeachment with prior convictions deprived appellant of his right to testify, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
• Boone v. State
  967 So. 2d 999· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-10-26 ·cited 10×
  Willie Boone appeals from a probation revocation and 30-year sentence imposed after he committed new crimes while on probation. The court affirmed the probation revocation based on sufficient evidence but reversed the sentence as exceeding the legal maximum under the "true split
• Diaz v. State
  890 So. 2d 556· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-01-14 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court reversed a conviction for delivery of heroin, finding that an undercover officer's testimony summarizing conversations with an intermediary constituted inadmissible hearsay.
• A.E.B. v. State
  818 So. 2d 534· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-01-16 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  A.E.B., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent for trespass and resisting an officer. The appellate court reversed the trespass adjudication because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony from a deputy sheriff regarding statements made by a witness with memory loss, b
• Judd v. State
  781 So. 2d 440· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-02-28 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Caroline Judd was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to sell based on officer surveillance. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding two critical errors: the trial court improperly refused to require the officer to disclose his surveillance location without
• Jarrett v. State
  654 So. 2d 973· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-21 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  Stephen Jarrett was convicted of theft of a motor vehicle after a jury trial conducted entirely in his absence, despite no lawful waiver of his right to be present. The court reversed because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180 clearly requires the defendant's presence at th
• United States v. Arambula-Ruiz
  987 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a prior drug conviction for knowledge and intent was proper under Rule 404(b), and co-conspirator statements were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E); errors in admitting prior arrests were harmless, and no Bruton error occurred.
• United States v. Timothy Wayne Morrow (89-5418/5708) & George Mooneyham (89-5710)
  977 F.2d 222· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Morrow's conviction for aiding and abetting the carrying of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
• State v. RAY
  604 So. 2d 1249· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-09-02 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal quashed a trial court order compelling a crime victim to appear at a live lineup for identification purposes. The court held that Florida law does not authorize compelling crime victims to participate in lineups absent a showing of comp
• United States v. Beaumont
  972 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not commit plain error in its jury instruction on structuring and did not commit reversible error in refusing to sever the defendant's case.
• Smith v. Collins
  964 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as the alleged errors did not rise to the level of constitutional violations or were harmless.
• United States v. McGLORY
  968 F.2d 309· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, but the concurring opinion questions the sufficiency of coded conversations as evidence and analyzes the ambiguity in sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
• United States v. Arias-Santana
  964 F.2d 1262· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a police report to rebut an implied charge of recent fabrication was proper, and that claims regarding witness sequestration and jury instructions were waived or waived and reviewed for plain error, with no such error found.