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. Young
  981 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, specifically the requirement for a good cause showing for the nondisclosure of confidential informant identities, constituted plain error requiring remand for resentencing.
• Goldsmith v. S.R. Witkowski
  981 F.2d 697· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the petitioner's drug convictions, and the jury's consideration of stricken testimony did not violate his rights.
• United States v. Kelly
  973 F.2d 1145· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance, refusing to produce certain evidence, or admitting hearsay statements of a co-conspirator, and that the Bank Bribery Act was not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
• United States v. Santiago
  977 F.2d 517· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an intended loss for sentencing enhancement purposes cannot exceed the economically realistic probable or actual loss. It also held that a defendant is not entitled to a reduction for an incomplete attempt if they completed all acts they believed necessary for
• Velarde v. United States
  972 F.2d 826· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-14 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, both trial and appellate, failed to meet the Strickland standard for performance and prejudice.
• United States v. Chrismon
  965 F.2d 1465· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no Sixth Amendment violations regarding co-defendant statements and upholding the denial of the motion to suppress Jackson's statement.
• United States v. Kladouris
  964 F.2d 658· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a deceased witness's grand jury testimony was proper under Rule 804(b)(5) and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that the defendant knowingly waived any conflict of interest with her counsel.
• United States v. Camacho
  955 F.2d 950· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that commencing trial in the defendant's absence, due to a weather delay, constituted an abuse of discretion and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Jeromey Clay Parker
  956 F.2d 169· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government adequately complied with statutory requirements for transferring juveniles to adult court and that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous.
• Everhart v. State
  592 So. 2d 352· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-14 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Rodney Everhart appealed his first-degree murder conviction, arguing that the state's case relied improperly on hearsay evidence of an out-of-court identification. The appellate court agreed, finding that a police officer's recitation of a non-testifying witness's identification
• United States v. Washington
  952 F.2d 1402· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's redacted statement, using neutral pronouns or general terms, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if it does not create an inevitable association with the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given.
• United States v. Riggi
  951 F.2d 1368· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-12 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Eloy Horacio DeSOTO
  950 F.2d 626· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and that this error was not harmless.
• Wealot v. Armontrout
  948 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limitation of cross-examination designed to show a witness's motive for fabrication violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• United States v. Federico Giovanelli
  945 F.2d 479· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the prosecutor's conduct in playing tapes for the first time during rebuttal summation was improper and unfair, it did not affect the validity of the convictions for other offenses.
• Vincent v. Al Parke
  942 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Reindeau
  947 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that restricting the cross-examination of the government's expert witness regarding whether the explosive device was designed as a weapon impermissibly prevented the defendants from presenting their defense, constituting reversible error.
• United States v. Begay
  937 F.2d 515· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual activity, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Fannin v. State
  581 So. 2d 974· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-21 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Harold Fannin was convicted of cocaine possession based largely on testimony from his co-defendant Gwen Oliver. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court improperly restricted Fannin's cross-examination of Olive
• United States v. Williams
  936 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a codefendant's redacted confession, which does not directly implicate the defendant when viewed in isolation, is admissible even if other evidence links the defendant to the confession.
• United States v. Farkas
  935 F.2d 962· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limited admission of hearsay complaint letters did not violate the Sixth Amendment, there was sufficient evidence to support the credit card fraud convictions, and the restitution order to the bank was permissible as the bank was a victim of the credit car
• Burney v. State
  579 So. 2d 746· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-04-10 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony that implicated the defendant, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. YIP
  930 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government need not prove the defendant knew his actions would directly deprive the government of lawful duties under 18 U.S.C. § 542.
• United States v. Williams
  927 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed convictions for narcotics violations, finding no prejudicial error in jury selection, admission of plea allocutions, or Brady claims.
• United States v. Bowman
  926 F.2d 380· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a sentencing judge may rely on uncorroborated hearsay testimony, provided the defendant has notice and an opportunity to rebut it, and that such reliance does not violate Sixth Amendment notice requirements.
• Dawson Cole v. Tansy
  926 F.2d 955· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of an unavailable witness's statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause, the restriction on closing argument was not an abuse of discretion, and the evidence was sufficient for attempted armed robbery.
• Hughes Anderson Bagley, Jr. v. CMC Real Est. Corp.
  923 F.2d 758· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that Bagley's civil rights claims accrued when he first learned of the injury, not upon the completion of his habeas corpus proceedings, and that his § 1985(2) claim failed for lack of class-based animus.
• United States v. Zein Hassan ISA
  923 F.2d 1300· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that electronic surveillance conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was lawful, and the evidence obtained was admissible in criminal proceedings.
• United States v. Andrews
  919 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of criminal profile evidence was not plain error and hearsay testimony was harmless error, thus affirming the conviction.
• Apolinario Vigil v. Tansy
  917 F.2d 1277· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of a videotaped deposition of a child victim did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• Harper v. Kelly
  916 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination into the victim's emotional state during the robbery violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, and this error was not harmless.
• St. Luke Gregory, Jr. v. State OF N.C.
  900 F.2d 705· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would hold that any error in admitting a hearsay statement was harmless, and would reverse the grant of habeas corpus, finding the jury verdict reliable.
• D.A.D. v. State
  566 So. 2d 257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-03-13 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
• Clark v. Ricketts
  886 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated, his Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims regarding a presentence interview were waived, but his death sentence is unconstitutional due to the lack of a jury trial on aggravating factors.
• DON v. Crispas C. NIX
  886 F.2d 203· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the defendant had a right to attend the deposition, the failure to object properly and the subsequent admission of the deposition were harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Duran
  886 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in disallowing inquiries into the paternity of a victim's child, as such inquiries constituted inadmissible evidence of past sexual behavior under Fed.R.Evid. 412.
• United States v. Chavis
  880 F.2d 788· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a warrantless station house search of a vehicle is permissible if probable cause existed at the scene of arrest, and that reverse sting operations using informants do not violate due process if the illegal activity was not manufactured by the government.
• Morgan v. Norwood Jackson
  869 F.2d 682· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust state remedies by fairly presenting their federal claim to the state courts, including the factual and legal premises, before seeking federal review.
• United States v. Calvo
  865 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a co-conspirator's statement after defense counsel opened the door, nor in its other evidentiary rulings, and affirmed the convictions.
• Catarino Gonzales, Jr. v. Grammer
  848 F.2d 894· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prior guilty pleas were not entered in accord with due process, as the defendant was not sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights to make an intelligent choice.
• United States v. Valverde
  846 F.2d 513· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction, co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the district court did not err in denying the defendant's requests for expert services or in restricting expert testimony.
• United States v. Dwain Knigge
  832 F.2d 1100· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements and other evidence against the defendant was proper, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Williams v. State
  515 So. 2d 1042· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-11-03 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  Lee Williams appealed his conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible hearsay evidence—Detective Gross's testimony regarding co-conspirator James's post-arrest statements. The court agreed, finding b
• Payne v. LeFEVRE
  825 F.2d 702· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
• Pillette v. Dale Foltz & Frank Kelley
  824 F.2d 494· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that futility did not excuse this failure.
• United States v. ONE 1982 Chevrolet Crew-Cab Truck VIN 1GCHK33M9C143129
  810 F.2d 178· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment for forfeiture was proper because the government established probable cause and the claimant failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding his knowledge or affirmative defenses, and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause did not
• United States v. Gregory
  808 F.2d 679· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination on a witness's shoelaces was not a violation of confrontation rights and any error was harmless, and that informing the jury of the number of prior felony convictions was not error.
• Beck v. Norris
  801 F.2d 242· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the use of testimony from witnesses who had undergone hypnosis did not deprive the petitioner of a fair trial, and any error in a jury instruction regarding malice was harmless.
• Holland v. Scully
  797 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Illinois, constituted a Bruton violation that could not be considered harmless error.
• Shuman v. Wolff
  791 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession in a 1958 murder trial constituted harmless error, and that Nevada's mandatory death penalty statute for a person serving a life sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.