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. Torres
  965 F.2d 303· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not constitute plain error, and the limitation on cross-examination was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Robert Holmes (91-3735)
  961 F.2d 599· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(vii) are constitutional, and that using corroborated hearsay in a pre-sentence report for sentence enhancement does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Haren
  952 F.2d 190· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants, finding sufficient evidence for convictions, no reversible error in jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and no abuse of discretion in sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Kiser
  948 F.2d 418· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence seized under the good faith exception, denying suppression of testimony derived from an independent source, denying standing to challenge a search of an employee's car, finding counsel's stipulations harmles
• State v. Kleinfeld
  587 So. 2d 592· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-10-09 ·cited 10×
  The court reversed the trial court's order excluding the prior testimony of deceased witnesses, holding that such testimony is admissible at retrial if it contains indicia of reliability and was subject to cross-examination, even if the defendant was denied self-representation at
• Anson Avery Maynard v. Dixon
  943 F.2d 407· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition, affirming the denial of summary judgment on all grounds.
• United States v. Peralta
  941 F.2d 1003· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a co-conspirator's statements are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) even if the declarant was acquitted of conspiracy charges, and that expert testimony on the Stockholm Syndrome is admissible to explain a victim's behavior.
• Delgado v. State
  574 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's redacted confession, even if potentially incriminating, constituted harmless error due to jury instructions and overwhelming evidence, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Timothy Wayne Morrow (89-5418/5708)
  923 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions on drug manufacturing and conspiracy charges but vacated the conviction for carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense due to an inadequate jury instruction.
• United States v. Martinez-Perez
  916 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that admitting deposition testimony without proving witness unavailability violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and that a district court's upward departure from Sentencing Guidelines requires clear articulation of reasons tied to permissible grounds.
• United States v. Pratt
  913 F.2d 982· 1st Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that electronically intercepted communications were admissible under federal law, the entrapment defense was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the informant's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was valid. The court also found sufficient evidence for
• United States v. Changa
  901 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination on witnesses' drug activities was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights or right to a fair trial. The court also held that the Sentencing Guidelines were properly applied by including c
• United States v. Shyres
  898 F.2d 647· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions for mail fraud, conspiracy, and tax offenses, but remanded for technical sentencing procedure compliance.
• Spain v. Rushen
  883 F.2d 712· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge's decision to shackle the defendant was not an abuse of discretion that denied due process, considering the specific security risks and the defendant's history.
• Jones v. Berry
  880 F.2d 670· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that even if the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to make an offer of proof regarding the relevance of the excluded questions and his trial counsel's actions obscured the intended purpose of the in
• Cook v. State
  531 So. 2d 1369· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-09-27 ·cited 10×
  Appellant was convicted of five counts of sexual battery on a child. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that physical evidence was lawfully seized pursuant to consent and that hearsay statements by the child victim, admitted under a Florida statute providing rel
• United States v. Klauer
  856 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting the cross-examination of a key witness regarding the specific details of his sentencing concessions, as the jury was already aware of the witness's motive and bias.
• Loylin King v. State
  525 So. 2d 924· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-05-03 ·cited 10×
  A plaintiff must identify specific employment practices causing disparate impact and demonstrate that the disparity is the result of those practices, not merely show a statistical imbalance in the overall workforce.
• United States v. Roberts
  844 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Jennie Roberts' out-of-court statement was admissible because it possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, satisfying both Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and the Confrontation Clause.
• Reardon v. Manson
  806 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-20 ·cited 10×
  The admission of drug-identification testimony by a state toxicologist, based on tests performed by chemists under his supervision, did not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Joyner v. King
  786 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his Sixth Amendment claim due to new factual allegations presented in federal court, and the state did not waive its right to assert the exhaustion requirement.
• Jackson v. Scully
  781 F.2d 291· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment confrontation claim, Fourth Amendment illegal arrest claim, and Fifth Amendment Miranda rights claim were procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas review, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Wolfe
  766 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions, as the evidence was sufficient, the co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the prior conviction evidence was properly handled.
• State v. T.L.W.
  457 So. 2d 566· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The State of Florida appealed the suppression of cocaine evidence that was consumed during chemical testing by the state chemist. The court held that the destruction of evidence during legitimate chemical analysis does not constitute a due process violation, and therefore reverse
• United States v. Posner
  594 F. Supp. 930· S.D. Fla.· 1984-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the press has a First Amendment right to inspect and copy tax returns admitted into evidence in a criminal trial, which outweighs the defendant's asserted privacy and fair trial interests when the information is already part of the public record.
• United States v. Walney Barrick Bodden
  736 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions of four defendants and dismissed the appeal of another, finding no merit in the challenges to the sufficiency of evidence or the limitations on cross-examination.
• Henshaw v. Kelly
  440 So. 2d 2· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-10-13 ·cited 10×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  Ralph Henshaw, a deputy sheriff, challenges the termination of his employment by Volusia County Manager Kelly, which was imposed following a Personnel Board hearing that had recommended only suspension. The court upholds the manager's authority under county Personnel Rules to imp
• State v. Reeves
  444 So. 2d 20· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-10-07 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State appeals a trial court's dismissal of a drug trafficking information against Scott Reeves based on the court's finding that a confidential informant-eyewitness refused to testify due to improper promises made by a detective. The appellate court reverses, holding that dis
• United States v. Ruff
  717 F.2d 855· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the admission of the co-defendant's unredacted statements was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• Taylor v. Curry
  708 F.2d 886· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the exclusion of the draft separation agreement was an error, it did not deprive the petitioner of a fundamentally fair trial, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• LaCHAPPELLE v. Moran
  699 F.2d 560· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's in camera conference with a minor witness, while unusual, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Vogel v. Percy
  691 F.2d 843· 7th Cir.· 1982-10-29 ·cited 10×
  The admission of a witness's prior inconsistent, unsworn statement as substantive evidence did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation or Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, provided the witness is available for cross-examination and the
• United States v. Moschetta
  673 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and firearms convictions, and that the admission of a CIA affidavit did not violate the confrontation clause.
• Bailey v. State
  411 So. 2d 1377· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-04-07 ·cited 10×
  Bailey was convicted of manslaughter for shooting his six-year-old daughter. He appeals on the ground that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by refusing to allow cross-examination of his wife about an alleged affair. The appellate court affi
• Olson v. Green
  668 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The admission of the accomplice's custodial statements was harmless error because the properly admitted evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the statements was insignificant.
• United States v. Young
  655 F.2d 624· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in sustaining objections to irrelevant cross-examination, that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and that there was no plain error in failing to instruct on simple possession.
• The United States v. Rothbart
  653 F.2d 462· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a deposition taken in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause was not harmless error.
• State v. Lenard B. Dolen, Jr.
  390 So. 2d 407· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-11-05 ·cited 10×
  The trial court erred in denying the state's motion for a protective order based on an absolute right of confrontation at a discovery deposition.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Blyden
  626 F.2d 310· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the defendants guilty of unlawful entry and petty larceny, affirming their convictions.
• Rolle v. State
  386 So. 2d 3· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-07-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  Ronald Rolle appeals his grand larceny conviction, challenging the trial judge's refusal to allow cross-examination of a prosecution witness about an ongoing perjury investigation. The court affirms, holding that while defendants may generally cross-examine prosecution witnesses
• United States v. Fletcher Williams
  631 F.2d 198· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-23 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney's decision not to use recanting affidavits was a reasonable tactical choice based on concerns about duress and potential harm to the client's case.
• Corbett v. Bordenkircher
  615 F.2d 722· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-22 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge would have remanded the case for a determination of prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• Wilson v. Harris
  595 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  A defendant who voluntarily and knowingly absents himself from his trial, through disruptive conduct or refusal to appear, waives his constitutional right to be present.
• United States v. Davis
  578 F.2d 277· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were valid, rejecting claims of Brady violations, double jeopardy, merger of offenses, and inadmissible hearsay.
• Ferrell v. Estelle
  568 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to provide adequate means for a deaf defendant to understand the proceedings, thus violating his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and to assist in his defense.
• Stidham v. Wyrick
  567 F.2d 836· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-29 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the procedures employed to revoke Stidham's parole complied with due process, and thus his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Cook v. State
  353 So. 2d 911· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-12-28 ·cited 10×
  Four defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit sexual battery and sexual battery following a joint trial. The court affirmed their convictions despite assuming a potential Bruton violation occurred when codefendants' incriminating statements were admitted at trial, findin
• Annunziato v. Manson
  566 F.2d 410· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state's failure to disclose a key witness's leniency agreement, which led to false testimony, violated the defendant's constitutional rights and warranted a new trial.
• Mills v. Estelle
  552 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The Sixth Amendment confrontation clause does not compel admission of a prosecution witness's remote prior conviction for general impeachment purposes when there is no claim of bias or official pressure.
• United States v. Wigerman
  549 F.2d 1192· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of the stolen goods' market value and that the business records were properly admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6).