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. Eristello Sesena Provencio
  554 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the introduction of deposition testimony without proof of witness unavailability and without a stipulation permitting its use violated the appellants' constitutional right to confrontation, compelling reversal.
• United States v. Demchak
  545 F.2d 1029· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that striking a father's adverse testimony against his son and instructing the jury to disregard it was insufficient to cure the prejudice, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Schaffer
  539 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to use and actual use of extortionate means to collect an extension of credit was supported by ample evidence and that the indictment was sufficient.
• Hill v. State
  330 So. 2d 487· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-04-15 ·cited 10×
  Roger Dean Hill appeals his rape conviction, challenging the admission of a tape-recorded statement by a co-accused who invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. The court reversed Hill's conviction, holding that admitting the extrajudicial statement violated the Confro
• McDONALD v. The United States
  531 F.2d 490· Ct. Cl.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Uniform Code of Military Justice's combination of roles for the convening authority does not, on the facts presented, violate the Due Process Clause.
• United States v. Prevatt
  526 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress bank records, admitting certain evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the record contained sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
• McGRATH v. Vinzant
  528 F.2d 681· 1st Cir.· 1976-01-16 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in creating a new exception to witness protection rules and shifting the burden of proof to the defendant without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez
  519 F.2d 1052· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession, even when used by the prosecutor for corroboration, did not require reversal where the confession did not directly inculpate the defendant and the evidence against him was overwhelming.
• Stephan v. United States
  496 F.2d 527· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-26 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that it was not error for the District Court to deny relief on motions to vacate judgment and sentence because the issues presented had been decided on direct appeal.
• United States v. Bagsby
  489 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination regarding a polygraph examination and state parole status, as appellants were afforded sufficient opportunity to explore witness motives.
• Courtney v. United States
  486 F.2d 1108· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that any technical violation of the Bruton rule was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the joint representation, while precluding cross-examination of a co-defendant, did not prejudice the appellant given the cooperative defense strategy and the witness's s
• United States v. Kitchen
  480 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the government made reasonable efforts to produce a key informant and did not cause his unavailability.
• van Blaricom v. Forscht
  473 F.2d 1323· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-21 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the procedure used to revoke the appellant's parole did not conform to applicable federal statutory, administrative, and constitutional requirements, specifically those established in Goldberg v. Kelly.
• United States v. Star
  470 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1972-12-29 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the government's improper use of the grand jury for discovery did not warrant reversal due to lack of prejudice, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witn
• United States v. Ellis
  468 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that restricting cross-examination to reveal an undercover agent's identity was not error when the prosecution showed substantial reasons for withholding the information and the testimony's significance was marginal.
• United States v. Jordan
  466 F.2d 99· 4th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for a continuance to investigate witnesses and for disclosure of government witnesses' names, nor in denying a motion to suppress the victim's identification.
• United States v. Harless
  464 F.2d 953· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of prior testimony was permissible, the judge's demeanor observation was not required, the denial of a transcript was within discretion, and the Fourth Amendment was not violated.
• United States v. Downing
  454 F.2d 373· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's Selective Service file, including a letter reporting his failure to submit to induction, was admissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1733 and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• James v. State
  254 So. 2d 838· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-12-02 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  Roosevelt James was convicted of first-degree murder based partly on testimony from a witness who died before trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the admission of a transcript of the witness's preliminary hearing testimony, holding that preliminary hearing testim
• United States v. Jefferson D. Ross
  439 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for assault with intent to commit murder were supported by substantial evidence and that venue was proper. The court also found no denial of due process or speedy trial rights.
• Ervin Simmons v. United States
  440 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant's right to confrontation is not violated when a co-defendant's prior statement is admitted after the co-defendant has pled guilty and is available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Fiore
  434 F.2d 966· 1st Cir.· 1970-12-04 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the federal anti-loan sharking statute (18 U.S.C. § 894) is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Bankruptcy Clause. The defendant's challenges to the statute's constitutionality and his conviction were rejected.
• Denny Lee Gafford v. Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kan., & State of Alaska
  434 F.2d 318· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether jury misconduct occurred, as a juror's affidavit alleging consideration of outside evidence raises factual questions requiring resolution.
• United States v. Ybarra
  430 F.2d 1230· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions related to speedy trial, admissibility of co-defendant statements, sufficiency of evidence, Grand Jury transcripts, statute constitutionality, and informant identity disclosure.
• Daboul v. Craven
  429 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the arrest lawful and the admission of prior testimony admissible on most counts, while remanding one count for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Dillard Elean Henderson v. United States
  419 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of constitutional violations during his trial were without merit and did not warrant vacating his sentence.
• United States v. Braxton
  417 F.2d 878· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting demonstrative evidence, qualifying an expert witness, or summarizing the evidence for the jury.
• Donathan Garvin Kemp v. United States
  415 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-15 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Selective Service file was admissible, the evidence was sufficient, and the appellant's constitutional and discrimination claims were without merit.
• Wallace v. United States
  412 F.2d 1097· D.C. Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that recorded conversations obtained through an informer were lawfully obtained and admissible, and that other alleged trial errors did not deny the appellants a fair trial.
• United States v. Allen
  409 F.2d 611· 10th Cir.· 1969-04-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that transcripts of preliminary hearing testimony are admissible at trial if the defendant had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, even if the witnesses later invoke the Fifth Amendment and are physically present.
• United States ex rel. Preston Smith v. Hon. Harold W. Follette
  405 F.2d 1199· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-13 ·cited 10×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that federal habeas corpus petitions should be dismissed without prejudice to allow state courts an opportunity to adjudicate the confrontation clause claims first.
• Martin v. Beto
  397 F.2d 741· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-18 ·cited 10×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that while the Court of Inquiry procedures raise grave constitutional questions regarding due process and publicity, the appellant received a fair trial, and the grand jury issue is settled by precedent regarding state ind
• McGARRITY v. Wilson
  368 F.2d 677· 9th Cir.· 1966-10-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the applicant raised potentially non-frivolous claims regarding constitutional violations.
• United States v. Repetti
  364 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1966-07-25 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed the conviction.
• Davis v. Elvis J. Stahr, Jr.
  293 F.2d 860· D.C. Cir.· 1961-06-15 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  A reservist cannot be given a less than honorable discharge based on pre-induction conduct or failure to disclose such conduct, nor can derogatory statements made on active duty be the basis for such a discharge from the inactive reserve without affording the right of confrontati
• Bridgman v. United States
  183 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1950-06-28 ·cited 10×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that inconsistent verdicts are not fatal to a conviction, and that the evidence supported a finding of a single, comprehensive scheme to defraud, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Renado Smith
  928 F.3d 1215· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-02 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Renado Smith and Richard Delancy for conspiracy to commit alien smuggling and related offenses, holding that the district court did not err in admitting the videotaped deposition testimony of a key witness (Vanessa Armstrong Vixama
• Walker v. State
  77 So. 3d 890· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-01-20 ·cited 9×·via Right To Confrontation
  Ronnie Walker was convicted of manslaughter, armed burglary, and armed robbery in connection with a home invasion and murder. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously admitted inadmissible hearsay evidence that an unnamed third
• State v. Holland
  76 So. 3d 1032· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-12-14 ·cited 9×
  The State appeals the trial court's order suppressing a videotape from a DUI investigation on Confrontation Clause grounds. The appellate court reverses, holding that Deputy Grady's statements on the videotape constitute non-hearsay verbal acts that give meaning to Holland's cond
• Brown v. State
  69 So. 3d 316· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-08-17 ·cited 9×
  Norman Brown appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and related charges, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements made by co-defendant Kevin Miller to a third party describing Brown's participation in the crimes. The appella
• Thompson v. State
  994 So. 2d 468· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-11-05 ·cited 9×·via Right To Confrontation
  Thompson appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting 31-year sentence, challenging the admission of hearsay evidence from a co-defendant at the revocation hearing. The Third District affirmed the revocation, holding that hearsay is admissible in probation revocation pr
• BOX v. State
  993 So. 2d 135· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-10-24 ·cited 9×
  Jerry Box appeals a restitution order imposed as part of his battery conviction sentence, arguing that hearsay evidence used at the restitution hearing violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court holds that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to restitution
• Bryon D. Park v. City OF W. Melbourne
  927 So. 2d 5· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-02-17 ·cited 9×·via Right To Confrontation
  Police officer Park was discharged for dishonesty following an investigation into his involvement with a psychic hotline call made from a police department phone. After the hearing officer ordered his reinstatement with back pay, the City challenged the ruling. The appellate cour
• Styles v. State
  780 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-04-04 ·cited 9×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state was required to disclose the identity of a confidential informant when the informant's participation in a drug transaction is essential to the defense.
• Amendment TO Fla. Rule OF Juv. Procedure 8.100(a). & Petition Requesting Approval TO Implement A Pilot Project Utilizing Elec. Audiovisual Devices IN Juv. Detention Hearings
  667 So. 2d 195· Fla.· 1996-01-25 ·cited 9×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court rejected a proposed amendment to allow juveniles to attend detention hearings via audiovisual device statewide, but authorized a one-year pilot program in five judicial circuits to test the procedure. The Court balanced due process concerns against pract
• United States v. Barnett
  989 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentencing, finding that the drug quantity was reasonably estimated, the drug purity issue was waived, consent to search was voluntary, and the search warrant affidavit established probable cause even without disputed information.
• United States v. Reiter
  897 F.2d 639· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a defendant tried in absentia on a superseding indictment must be arraigned on that indictment if it is substantially different from the one previously arraigned upon, to ensure knowing waiver of the right to presence. The court also held that while counsel's
• United States v. Soriano
  880 F.2d 192· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 9×
  The court held that mail fraud convictions based on a scheme to defraud citizens of their intangible right to honest government are invalid under McNally v. United States, but Soriano's Hobbs Act conviction was valid.
• Evans v. Lewis
  855 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the death sentence is reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase.
• Brown v. Dugger
  831 F.2d 1547· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination into a witness's potential deal with the state violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.