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. Avery
  760 F.2d 1219· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Arthur Avery's perjury count was properly joined and severance was not warranted, but Alisa Avery's conviction must be reversed due to a Bruton violation from her father's grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Head
  755 F.2d 1486· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 8×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting witness testimony, limiting cross-examination, admitting co-conspirator statements, or finding sufficient evidence for the convictions.
• United States v. Mira Carolyn Smith
  748 F.2d 1091· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to strike a juror for cause, but did err in limiting cross-examination of a government witness, though this error was harmless.
• United States v. Terrazas-Montano
  747 F.2d 467· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the videotaped depositions of unavailable witnesses, taken under circumstances approximating a traditional courtroom setting, were admissible and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
• United States v. Schuster
  734 F.2d 424· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 8×
  A trial court is not required to advise a defendant of their right to confrontation before accepting a waiver of jury trial and submission of guilt determination on stipulated facts, if the stipulation does not conclusively demonstrate guilt.
• United States v. Ga. Waste Sys., Inc.
  731 F.2d 1580· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, prosecutorial arguments regarding a co-conspirator's silence, and the sufficiency of evidence for interstate commerce were not grounds for reversal.
• Cole v. Hunter
  726 F.2d 434· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and declining to reach the merits of the Fifth Amendment claim due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Carrillo v. Perkins
  723 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 8×
  A restriction on cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding potential bias, even if it violates the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, can be harmless error if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
• United States v. Reynolds
  715 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, which implied the defendant's guilt, constituted prejudicial hearsay error in a joint trial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Thunder
  714 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting pretrial statements of nontestifying codefendants that incriminated each other in a joint trial violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this error was not harmless.
• Brewer v. Raines
  670 F.2d 117· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 8×
  A defendant's knowing, intelligent, and voluntary absence from trial and sentencing constitutes a waiver of their Sixth Amendment right to be present, and such absence can be inferred under Rule 9.1 if the defendant had notice and warning.
• United States v. Sellers
  658 F.2d 230· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the defendant's motions for continuance, severance, and restrictions on cross-examination.
• United States v. Willis
  647 F.2d 54· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's refusal to permit cross-examination of a government witness regarding his bias violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, requiring reversal of both convictions.
• Montes v. Jenkins
  626 F.2d 584· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's adoption of the petitioner's confession was not a violation of confrontation rights, and the confession itself was voluntary and not the fruit of illegal detention.
• United States v. Coleman
  631 F.2d 908· D.C. Cir.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that DEA forms and lock-seal envelopes containing skeletal information and prepared for chain of custody were admissible, and that notecards qualifying as statements of identification or prior consistent statements were also admissible. However, the court vacated c
• United States v. Boyd
  620 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's silence was improper, it constituted harmless error due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding identification instructions, hearsay, discovery, and cont
• United States v. Alderete
  614 F.2d 726· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The trial court did not err in allowing the government to reopen its case to establish jurisdiction, nor did it improperly comment on the defendant's failure to testify or abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination.
• Butler v. State
  376 So. 2d 937· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-11-15 ·cited 8×
  David Butler was convicted of marijuana possession with intent to sell. On appeal, the court found reversible error in the admission of a severed codefendant's address book to prove knowledge of the codefendant, as it violated Butler's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The co
• United States ex rel. Sam Robert Faulisi & Thomas Vogt v. Thaddeus E. Pinkney
  611 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that federal courts are precluded from granting habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims when the state has provided an opportunity for full litigation, and that the Bruton rule does not apply to bench trials.
• United States v. Longee
  603 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of one defendant's out-of-court statement inculpating a co-defendant, when the declarant does not testify, violates the Confrontation Clause and constitutes plain error, requiring reversal of the co-defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Vissars
  596 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-07 ·cited 8×
• Collins v. Perini
  594 F.2d 592· 6th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of the appellant's claims.
• United States v. Cecilio Seijo
  595 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the deportation of material witnesses by the INS, absent proof of procurement for the purpose of preventing testimony, does not render their depositions inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a).
• United States v. Phillips
  593 F.2d 553· 4th Cir.· 1978-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that wiretap authorizations, searches, seizures, and evidentiary rulings were lawful and did not violate defendants' rights.
• United States v. Celaya-Garcia
  583 F.2d 210· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to transfer the trial, admitting coconspirator statements, or admitting testimony about subsequent drug transactions.
• Patterson v. McCARTHY
  581 F.2d 220· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination regarding a key witness's parole status violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Randolph v. Parker
  575 F.2d 1178· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions in a joint trial, where the co-defendants did not testify and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause under Bruton v. United States, and this violation could not be
• Gilmour v. State
  358 So. 2d 63· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-04-18 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  Attorney James Gilmour was held in contempt for commenting during closing argument on his client's testimony and the co-defendant's failure to testify in a joint murder trial. The court reversed the contempt judgment, holding that the attorney's comments were not contemptuous whe
• Evanco v. State
  350 So. 2d 780· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-08-18 ·cited 8×
  Michael Evanco was convicted of possession and delivery of cocaine. He appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to compel discovery, arguing the court erred by allowing a police officer to refuse to answer questions about his home address, marital status, and children at a
• United States v. Haynes
  560 F.2d 913· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that statements made by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible, and that the admission of such statements, even if hearsay, does not violate the Confrontation Clause when the declarant is unavailable.
• United States v. Gorham
  536 F.2d 410· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-29 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding no merit in the appellants' claims regarding severance, reliance on out-of-record evidence, or the validity of immunity promises.
• Doyle Delmar Royal v. State OF Md.
  529 F.2d 1280· 4th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of testimony identifying the defendant from an unduly suggestive lineup was not harmless error, requiring reversal.
• Burroughs v. United States
  515 F.2d 824· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the use of a written guilty plea form, supplemented by oral dialogue, satisfied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11's requirement that the court address the defendant personally.
• United States v. Duhart
  511 F.2d 7· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-11 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the erroneous limitation of cross-examination regarding a witness's criminal history and potential bias was harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the witness's testimony was not critical. The court also affirmed the denial of search
• United States v. Munn
  507 F.2d 563· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal, nor in sequestering the defendant, and that the larceny conviction merged with the robbery conviction.
• United States v. Fruge
  492 F.2d 1163· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's numerous claims of prejudicial error were without merit and affirmed his conviction.
• Swab v. The Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist.
  494 F.2d 353· 8th Cir.· 1974-04-11 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The hearing procedures provided by Iowa Code § 279.13 satisfied procedural due process requirements for teacher contract termination.
• United States v. Webster
  490 F.2d 435· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-22 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to have the informant produced at trial by failing to take further action after the government assured the informant would testify but did not produce him.
• United States v. Lewis
  486 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-19 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a prior felony conviction used for impeachment is invalid if the defendant was denied counsel or did not validly waive counsel, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
• Horton v. State
  285 So. 2d 418· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-08-31 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  William Horton was convicted of rape in a joint trial with his brother Leslie. The trial court suppressed William's own statements under Miranda, but allowed Leslie's incriminating statements against William at trial despite William's lack of opportunity to cross-examine Leslie.
• United States v. Ready
  460 F.2d 1238· 4th Cir.· 1972-05-15 ·cited 8×
  A defendant's guilty plea is valid even if the court does not explicitly inform them of the right to confront accusers, as this right is implicitly waived by pleading guilty.
• United States v. Wing
  459 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's out-of-court statement was permissible when the co-defendant testified and was subject to cross-examination, and that a prosecutor's comment during closing argument was not an improper reference to the defendant's silence.
• United States ex rel. Curtis Abbott v. Twomey
  460 F.2d 400· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in suppressing an informer's true identity and address because the informer was not the principal witness against the accused, and the defendant was not denied effective cross-examination.
• Howard v. Sigler
  454 F.2d 115· 8th Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admissibility of prior testimony based on a witness's unavailability due to illness is a preliminary factual determination governed by due process, not the Confrontation Clause, and can be made using a credible affidavit.
• United States v. Brown
  452 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while admitting confessions that implicated co-defendants in violation of Bruton v. United States was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Mendoza
  441 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-28 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid because Miranda warnings were adequate, any Bruton violation was harmless error, and probable cause for arrest existed.
• Hollbrook v. United States
  441 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that jury instruction and hearsay evidence claims are not cognizable in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the prosecutor's remarks did not violate the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment confrontation claim was also denied.
• Arbuckle v. Turner
  440 F.2d 586· 10th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's guilty plea was valid, as it was entered voluntarily and intelligently, and the trial court's findings were supported by the record.
• United States v. Arceneaux
  437 F.2d 924· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues that the majority's expansion of the entrapment defense is improper and that the admission of inadmissible hearsay statements against a codefendant, even with a limiting instruction, requires reversal under Bruton v. United States.
• Gagnon v. State
  243 So. 2d 219· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-01-19 ·cited 8×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's numerous grounds for appeal, including issues with counsel, speedy trial, identification, jury selection, lesser included offenses, prosecutorial comment, confrontation rights, and charge reduction, did not constitute reversible error.