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

• State v. Mauricio P. Diaz and Cesar Ubillus
  678 So. 2d 1341· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-07-31 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida appeals the trial court's dismissal of drug trafficking charges against Diaz and Ubillus after the state refused to disclose the identity of a confidential tipster for in camera inquiry. The court affirms dismissal as to Diaz, whose viable defense of mere presence and spa
• Sigmon v. State
  622 So. 2d 57· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-07-19 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Anthony Sigmon appeals his sexual battery conviction, challenging the admission of the child victim's videotaped testimony given outside his presence. The court affirms the conviction but certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the trial court's failure to
• United States v. Dandy
  998 F.2d 1344· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed convictions for most counts, vacated one, and remanded, finding no reversible error in the judge's recusal decision, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial conduct, or the judge's questioning.
• United States v. Perez
  989 F.2d 1574· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a per se reversal rule for admitting coconspirator hearsay without required findings is modified; instead, appellate courts should assess harmless error and may remand for findings if necessary. The hearsay error in this case was harmless.
• United States v. Boykin
  986 F.2d 270· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the firearm-related charges and that the defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated by the delayed disclosure of witness perjury, as the witness was recalled and cross-examined.
• United States v. Marshall
  985 F.2d 901· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-03 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of evidence, indictment usage, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, variance between indictment and proof, jury instructions, or the handling of agent's notes.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  979 F.2d 138· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, enhancing the sentence for a prior aggravated felony, or admitting hearsay evidence.
• United States v. Olson
  978 F.2d 1472· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's address, nor in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Helton
  975 F.2d 430· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-21 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the district court did not err in determining restitution amounts, considering depositions at sentencing, or refusing to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Barksdale-Contreras
  972 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and various evidentiary and instructional challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Benson
  961 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the admission of certain reports constituted error, it was harmless. However, the sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice was based on insufficient findings and must be reconsidered.
• United States v. Chapman
  954 F.2d 1352· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants, finding no errors in the search and seizure, severance, double jeopardy, compulsory process, ineffective assistance of counsel, or sentencing issues raised.
• United States v. Velasco
  953 F.2d 1467· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Reva Young
  952 F.2d 1252· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's actions in opening an unauthorized account and misrepresenting her signatory authority constituted bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence.
• Ford v. State
  592 So. 2d 271· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-12-11 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Rufus Ford was convicted of first-degree murder based in part on the videotaped testimony of a four-year-old witness. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the videotaped testimony procedure was not statutorily authorized and violated Ford's Sixth Amendment right to
• Strapp v. State
  588 So. 2d 27· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's challenge to the aggravated battery conviction was not preserved for appellate review because the defense failed to make a clear offer of proof regarding the complaining witness's probationary status and motive to lie.
• United States v. MacEo
  947 F.2d 1191· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a single conspiracy and the individual convictions of the appellants, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• McCAFFERTY v. Leapley
  944 F.2d 445· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the statements possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Furthermore, any alleged trial errors were not so prejudicial as to
• Werner v. State
  590 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-31 ·cited 6×
  Martin Werner was convicted of committing a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of his 13-month-old daughter while masturbating in a bathroom. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute requires the child to actually see or sense the lewd act, not m
• State v. Nemeth
  581 So. 2d 627· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-07 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State sought certiorari review of a trial court order that granted the defendant's motion in limine to exclude testimony from a key prosecution witness regarding the ownership and timing of stolen property. The appellate court found the exclusion order constituted a departure
• United States v. Crump
  934 F.2d 947· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or admitting prior bad acts testimony, and that the evidence did not establish entrapment as a matter of law.
• United States v. Bonnet
  933 F.2d 1471· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The admission of hearsay statements from child victims did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the children testified and were subject to cross-examination, even if their memory was imperfect.
• Webb v. Lane
  922 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the victim's statements, identified as 'Little Gage,' did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they qualified as excited utterances and a dying declaration, which are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.
• Glock v. Dugger
  752 F. Supp. 1027· M.D. Fla.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' confessions, even if interlocking, was permissible under certain circumstances indicating reliability, and that counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• United States v. Panzardi-Lespier
  918 F.2d 313· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of the deceased informant's grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5) was proper, as it possessed sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and the defendant received adequate notice. The admission of tape recordings, despite some inaudible portio
• United States v. Thorn
  917 F.2d 170· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and equity skimming, and that the exclusion of evidence of a witness's unrelated state indictment was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. MacKey
  915 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that proceeding with a criminal trial in the defendant's absence, when his absence was due to transportation issues and not a knowing and voluntary waiver, constitutes reversible error, especially when the defendant misses jury selection and key witness testimony.
• Phillips v. Brennan
  912 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that if the Parole Commission fails to provide a prisoner with adequate notice of documents and witnesses to be used against him, it violates his due process rights, and the decision may not be upheld based on other evidence if the improperly considered factors con
• Donnie Shafer v. Hal Stratton
  906 F.2d 506· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner's claims were either procedurally defaulted, not of constitutional magnitude, or lacked merit under federal law.
• Orndorff v. A.L. Lockhart
  906 F.2d 1230· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's failure to disclose a key witness's hypnosis was a constitutional error, but the harmless error analysis requires comparing pre-hypnosis statements with trial testimony, not deeming it inherently prejudicial.
• United States v. Vernor
  902 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a father's custodial confessions implicating his son in a bank robbery did not violate the son's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, corroborated by other evidence.
• United States v. Amerson-Bey
  898 F.2d 681· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in sustaining an objection during cross-examination and that the sentence enhancement did not violate due process as the constitutional objection was not raised below.
• United States v. Bentley
  875 F.2d 1114· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a laboratory report indicating a positive urine drug test, without further explanation of the testing procedure or opportunity for cross-examination, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Fryar
  867 F.2d 850· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror for lying, denying motions for mistrial and new trial, or in excluding evidence and refusing to disclose an informant's identity.
• United States v. Morales-MacIas
  855 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 6×
  An out-of-court statement offered to explain preliminary circumstances, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted, is not hearsay and its admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
• United States v. Verbeke
  853 F.2d 537· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that hearsay evidence is admissible at probation revocation hearings, and a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served on probation.
• United States v. Muzamal Chaudhry
  850 F.2d 851· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of constitutional violations and discovery infractions were without merit, as they were either factually unsupported by the record, procedurally defaulted, or did not demonstrate prejudice.
• Cooper v. Scroggy
  845 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Calloway's confession was unconstitutionally admitted, but Cooper's confession was not. However, Cooper's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Calloway's confession against him.
• United States v. Hernandez
  842 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial in the defendants' voluntary absence, nor in denying their motions for severance or suppression of evidence.
• United States ex rel. Charles Sanders v. Lane
  835 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's incriminating statement at a joint trial violates the Confrontation Clause unless the error was harmless.
• Wells v. Murray
  831 F.2d 468· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudice, not a "strong possibility," is the standard for determining if a defendant is entitled to voir dire when events outside the trial may have biased the jury.
• McQUEEN v. Garrison
  814 F.2d 951· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, as the testimony was sufficiently independent of the hypnosis and corroborated by other evidence.
• United States v. Thompson
  807 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, the admission of a homemade knife was proper, the restriction of cross-examination was justified, and the voir dire was adequate.
• Andrade v. O.L. McCOTTER
  805 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prisoner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, thus denying his request for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• United States v. Bueno-Risquet
  799 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of testimony and request forms regarding missing heroin exhibits was proper, and that an erroneous jury instruction on anticipated profits was harmless error. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Ward
  793 F.2d 551· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's conduct in orchestrating a drug smuggling operation did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to violate due process, and that the admission of evidence of prior drug activity was proper.
• United States v. Laszlo Szabo
  789 F.2d 1484· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting co-conspirator testimony, as direct testimony does not require a trustworthiness hearing, and the admitted co-conspirator statements were not crucial or devastating and had sufficient indicia of reliability.
• United States v. Alexander
  789 F.2d 1046· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of motions for a new trial and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, finding no Brady violations, Jencks Act violations, Rule 16 violations, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Jonas
  786 F.2d 1019· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting redacted statements, or in its handling of a potentially biased juror. The convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Winsor
  785 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-24 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act does not violate the Eighth Amendment's excessive bail prohibition or the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and the district court's detention order was supported by the evidence.