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

• Loggins v. Frey
  786 F.2d 364· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance and that the defendant waived his right of confrontation by stipulating to the victim's unavailability.
• Dres v. Campoy
  784 F.2d 996· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability and the testimony lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.
• Bennie Fulmore v. State
  483 So. 2d 765· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-05 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that allowing hearsay evidence in a photographic lineup and allowing a rebuttal witness without a Richardson hearing constituted reversible error.
• Humphrey v. United States
  766 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The district court abused its discretion by denying the appellant's third motion to vacate sentence as entirely successive, requiring further proceedings.
• Carrasco v. State
  470 So. 2d 858· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-13 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Johnny Carrasco was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and robbery following a shooting and carjacking on Interstate 10. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because Officer Dennis's testimony regarding a non-testifying codefendant's confession viola
• United States v. Carvalho
  742 F.2d 146· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting ex-spouses' affidavits under hearsay exceptions, as the statements were not against penal interest and lacked trustworthiness, and the error was not harmless.
• Hosea Lorenzo Williams v. Melton
  733 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The admission of hearsay statements identifying the driver of a car, lacking adequate indicia of reliability, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless error.
• Rosetta McKINZY v. Louie L. Wainwright
  719 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation requires allowing cross-examination of a juvenile witness regarding their record if it could show bias, overriding state laws protecting juvenile record confidentiality.
• Lyle v. Koehler
  720 F.2d 426· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-21 ·cited 6×
  The admission of extra-judicial statements by a co-defendant, which incriminated the petitioner and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Pritchett
  699 F.2d 317· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's interjection confirming a witness's criminal history and the limitation on cross-examination regarding other drug sources constituted reversible error.
• Logan v. Marshall
  680 F.2d 1121· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the state trial court's evidentiary ruling excluding evidence of the victim's gonorrhea did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights and was not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Harrison v. State
  403 So. 2d 565· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the revocation of probation for possessing metallic knuckles and committing batteries, but reversed the sentencing for selling methaqualone due to statutory violations. The court clarified that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation applies to wit
• Emilio Valenzuela, Jr. v. Griffin
  654 F.2d 707· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to secure the witness's presence at trial, thus violating the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
• Juneal Dale Pratt v. Parratt
  615 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding denial of confrontation, tainted identifications, and cruel and unusual punishment lacked merit, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Tolbert v. Jago
  607 F.2d 753· 6th Cir.· 1979-10-08 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the use of grand jury testimony was permissible because the witness's memory loss was potentially coerced by the defendant, or the defense did not attempt to compel testimony.
• Daniels v. State
  374 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-09-19 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Daniels appeals his conviction for possession and sale of phencyclidine, arguing the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by preventing cross-examination of the chief prosecution witness about his juvenile probation status. The court agrees and rev
• State v. Liberace Atkins
  369 So. 2d 389· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-03-28 ·cited 6×
  Florida appeals the dismissal of drug possession charges against Atkins after the trial court ruled the state could not prove its case because the heroin evidence was consumed during chemical testing. The appellate court reverses, holding that unavoidable destruction of contraban
• Gov't OF The Canal Zone v. Ruben Antonio Yanez P. (Pinto)
  590 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony of absent witnesses violated the Canal Zone Code and Federal Rules of Evidence because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witnesses' unavailability by process or other reasonable means.
• United States v. Axtman
  589 F.2d 196· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of identification testimony and the photo display was not erroneous, even if the photo had suggestive characteristics, because the identification was reliable and the defense acquiesced to the display's admission.
• Lemire v. McCARTHY
  570 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the state trial court's rulings regarding his testimony and the admissibility of evidence concerning the prosecutrix's sexual history. The court also found no due process violation regarding suppresse
• Artemio Crespo v. State
  350 So. 2d 507· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-09-20 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Artemio Crespo appeals his conviction for attempted sale or delivery of cocaine, raising three constitutional and evidentiary challenges. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no error in precluding disclosure of a confidential informant's address,
• United States v. Martinez
  555 F.2d 1248· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy and the appellants' participation, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying a continuance.
• United States v. Nixon
  545 F.2d 1190· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-03 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of constitutional rights, including the right to confront witnesses, is valid when made in writing with counsel, even when the case is submitted on stipulated facts.
• Poindexter v. Wolff
  540 F.2d 390· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-10 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. Other claims were properly rejected by the district court.
• United States v. Larry
  536 F.2d 1149· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in declaring a mistrial due to jury deadlock, and that the witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was permissible as there was no knowing waiver.
• Hassberger v. State
  321 So. 2d 577· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-10-10 ·cited 6×
  This case addresses whether a confidential informant who testifies as a prosecution witness can withhold their identity from the defendant. The court holds that when an informant actually appears as a trial witness, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine generally
• Lea Spears v. Cir. Court
  517 F.2d 360· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of certain hearsay evidence, and that her other claims regarding the constitutionality of the abortion statute and due process were without merit.
• United States v. Miranda
  510 F.2d 385· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-13 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
• United States v. Cleveland
  507 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that in net worth tax evasion cases, the entire Special Agent's Report (SAR) must be tendered to the defense under the Jencks Act, as the investigation itself constitutes the subject matter of the agent's testimony.
• United States v. Buchanan
  500 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the appellants' Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation were not denied.
• Bishop P. Parrish v. Seamans
  485 F.2d 571· 4th Cir.· 1973-10-09 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The district court correctly found that mandamus was not the proper remedy for the appellant's claims regarding his military conviction.
• Shaffer v. Field
  484 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The admission of dying victim's spontaneous statements and the warrantless entry into the petitioner's locker did not violate the Sixth or Fourth Amendments, respectively, and the trial court's jury instructions did not violate due process.
• United States v. Miller
  480 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the airport search was constitutional and the evidence was properly admitted, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Collins
  478 F.2d 837· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-31 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prior trial testimony of a witness, who feigned memory loss to avoid testifying against defendants, was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule and did not violate defendants' confrontation rights.
• United States v. Sanchez-Rodriguez
  475 F.2d 61· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was valid despite claims of illegal arrest, denial of travel to Mexico, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper jury instructions.
• Fuller v. State
  473 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-15 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The district court correctly dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies.
• United States v. Rickey
  457 F.2d 1027· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-29 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was proper, severance was not required, and the trial court's rulings and jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Hone
  456 F.2d 495· 6th Cir.· 1972-03-09 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the defendant's sentence is affirmed, the district court's practice of holding pre-sentence conferences with prosecutors but not defense counsel must be discontinued to avoid potential prejudice and protect confrontation rights.
• Childs v. Cardwell
  452 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of hearsay testimony, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming eyewitness identification and the defendant's failure to object at trial.
• United States v. Harris
  446 F.2d 129· 7th Cir.· 1971-07-27 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for failing to report for civilian work was not invalidated by procedural errors or constitutional claims, affirming the district court's judgment.
• Schofield v. United States
  441 F.2d 1219· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary or unintelligent by a misapprehension of the maximum possible sentence if the actual sentence imposed is not greater than the correct maximum and the plea was otherwise voluntary and intelligent.
• Goodwin v. Page
  418 F.2d 867· 10th Cir.· 1969-11-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a consecutive sentence for a subsequent crime runs independently of a prior conviction that is later declared void.
• United States v. Maurice
  416 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the co-defendant's attorney's opening statement comments, even if potentially prejudicial, did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment rights and were harmless error given the overwhelming evidence.
• Neal v. United States
  415 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the harmless error rule can apply to Bruton errors, and the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States ex rel. Clifford Hundley v. Mr. Warren Pinto
  413 F.2d 727· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of a co-defendant's statement with limiting instructions, as the co-defendant testified and was available for cross-examination.
• Green v. United States
  411 F.2d 588· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that convictions must be reversed and new trials granted due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions that changed the law regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial statements and Miranda warnings.
• Gray v. United States
  407 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court confession in a joint trial violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as established in Bruton v. United States.
• Eyman v. Alford
  448 F.2d 306· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-24 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge believes the sentencing judge's reliance on unsworn, out-of-court statements to resolve crucial factual disputes regarding mental illness violated due process.
• United States ex rel. Joseph DeROSA v. Hon. J. Edwin LaVALLEE
  406 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the search warrant was properly issued based on sufficient probable cause, and the failure to disclose the informant's identity did not violate due process.
• United States v. Paxton
  403 F.2d 631· 3d Cir.· 1968-11-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of the bank auditor's testimony and certain business records was proper, and that the investigation into alleged juror misconduct was adequate.