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. Smith
  792 F.2d 441· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant who procures a witness's absence waives confrontation and hearsay objections to the witness's prior statement, and that the admission of a redacted, interlocking confession, even without a limiting instruction, was permissible.
• Beatty v. State
  486 So. 2d 59· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-04-09 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that admitting anonymous hearsay testimony identifying the defendant as the perpetrator, even with a limiting instruction, constitutes reversible error denying the right of confrontation and a fair trial.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  786 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a paralegal's testimony before a grand jury does not require the government to show need and relevance, and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing or in considering an ex parte affidavit.
• United States v. Cardenas
  784 F.2d 937· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Bail Reform Act permits pretrial detention and does not violate due process by allowing evidence by proffer, and that the defendant's ties to Mexico and access to funds supported the detention order.
• United States v. Robinson
  783 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's unsworn statement to the jury, made with counsel's consent, does not constitute a waiver of counsel, and that the trial court did not err in balancing the right to impeach co-conspirators against the risk of prejudice to defendants.
• Abelino Rodriguez v. Ricketts
  777 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the Due Process Clause does not require state courts to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea absent special circumstances, and that no conflict of interest affected the adequacy of appellate representation.
• Ervin Devere Ellison v. Sachs
  769 F.2d 955· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the admission of the child victim's hearsay statements violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
• Boone v. Marshall
  760 F.2d 117· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Ohio Rule of Evidence 801(D)(2)(e) does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and any such violation would be harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Fisher v. Rose
  757 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The district court abused its discretion by barring retrial based on the state's delay in retrying the petitioner, as the petitioner was no longer held under the constitutionally defective conviction.
• Kemp v. State
  464 So. 2d 1238· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-02-11 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination regarding the victim's prior sexual activity, as it was not relevant to the issues in the case.
• Rivera v. State
  462 So. 2d 540· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-11 ·cited 4×
  Roger Allan Rivera was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, not a firearm, after being identified through a photographic lineup. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress the pretrial identifications but reversed and remande
• United States v. Vaughn
  736 F.2d 665· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the destruction of a chemist's notes did not constitute reversible error because the underlying evidence (cocaine samples) was available for independent analysis by the defendants.
• Lacy v. Gabriel
  732 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim, raised sua sponte by the district court and not exhausted in state courts, renders a habeas petition "mixed" and requires dismissal of that claim, but the petition is not considered mixed if the petitioner only rai
• Adams v. State
  445 So. 2d 1132· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-03-02 ·cited 4×
  This case addresses the admissibility of confessions in joint criminal trials, specifically concerning the "Bruton rule" which prohibits the use of a co-defendant's confession that implicates another defendant. The court found that while there were some errors in how the confessi
• Nezowy v. United States
  723 F.2d 1120· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that cross-examining a defense witness about her invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege is trial error, but found the error to be harmless in this case.
• Whitfield v. State
  433 So. 2d 1285· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The concurring and dissenting opinion agrees with most of the majority's decision but disagrees with affirming points related to a discovery violation concerning the defendant's refusal to submit to fingerprinting and the subsequent jury instruction.
• Payne v. Janasz
  711 F.2d 1305· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of trial errors, including the injection of an unnecessary 'lawful seizure' element and the admission of unreliable hearsay, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and a denial of due process.
• United States v. Salovitz
  701 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  A criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to make an opening statement, and the granting and timing of such statements are within the trial court's discretion.
• Jacques Barratteau v. State
  422 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in restricting cross-examination or in denying a mistrial based on prosecutorial comments.
• Remer J. Dasher v. Stripling
  685 F.2d 385· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's physical inability to attend trial, without waiver, requires reversal of a conviction obtained in absentia.
• Flewallen v. Faulkner
  677 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The admission of out-of-court statements, read from transcripts and subjected to full cross-examination at trial, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, even without a contemporaneous opportunity to cross-examine the declarants when the statements were made.
• United States v. Cuyler
  653 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights to a speedy trial and confrontation were not violated, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. McMANAMAN
  653 F.2d 458· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court reviewed the admissibility of an insanity expert's testimony and whether the prosecution waived its objection by failing to timely object to the testimony.
• United States v. Benedict
  647 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to acts of foreign officials unless federal agents substantially participated in a joint venture, and the unavailability of physical evidence does not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• United States v. Koger
  646 F.2d 1194· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the Speedy Trial Act was violated, sanctions were not appropriate, but the erroneous admission of evidence of a third party's conviction and incarceration required reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Reardon v. Manson
  644 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court failed to properly apply the presumption of correctness required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when overturning state court convictions based on the same record. The case is remanded for reconsideration.
• Elroy Hendrix v. Smith
  639 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement that inculpated the appellant, even with a limiting instruction, violated the appellant's confrontation rights and was not harmless error given the weakness of the prosecution's case.
• Glenn v. Dallman
  635 F.2d 1183· 6th Cir.· 1980-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief regarding the Confrontation Clause claim, but remanded the jury instruction issue for reconsideration in light of a subsequent state supreme court decision.
• Soap v. Carter
  632 F.2d 872· 10th Cir.· 1980-10-24 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially prejudicial remarks in closing argument, which appealed to stereotypes and created a probability of jury impairment, violated the petitioner's due process rights.
• James v. State
  400 So. 2d 571· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-10-22 ·cited 4×
  A discovery deposition taken under Rule 3.220(d) is inadmissible at trial when the witness is unavailable, even if the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine, unless the procedure to perpetuate testimony under Rule 3.190(j) is followed.
• United States v. Jackson
  627 F.2d 883· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-22 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court's failure to explicitly inform the defendant that it could not order concurrent state and federal sentences, and its variations from a verbatim recitation of Rule 11 rights, did not invalidate the guilty plea as the defendant was otherwise adeq
• Robbins v. Cardwell
  618 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the constitutional issue of precluding defense witness testimony for discovery violations was not properly presented on appeal because the defendant subsequently waived his right to testify and present a defense, rendering the exclusion irrelevant.
• Dumas v. The United States
  620 F.2d 247· Ct. Cl.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Court of Claims has jurisdiction to review Article 15 proceedings for constitutional defects and money claims, and in this case, the search was constitutional and the Article 15 proceeding valid.
• Cheek v. Bates
  615 F.2d 559· 1st Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not commit constitutional error by disallowing a question about a witness's potential charges because defense counsel failed to make the purpose of the question (to show bias) clear to the judge.
• Thomas v. Estelle
  582 F.2d 939· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as factual issues regarding the applicability of a hearsay exception required further development.
• United States v. Sahag K. Dedeyan
  584 F.2d 36· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-19 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute was constitutional and properly applied, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding evidence, jury instructions, or the indictment.
• Hutul v. United States
  582 F.2d 1155· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-28 ·cited 4×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the petitioner's double jeopardy claim was foreclosed by the dual sovereignty doctrine and that other claims were without merit, affirming the dismissal of his § 2255 petition.
• Butts v. Louie L. Wainwright
  575 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that the admission of hospital records did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights.
• Smith v. Estelle
  569 F.2d 944· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession, which implicated the petitioner, without opportunity for cross-examination and under confusing jury instructions, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. This error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Chacon
  564 F.2d 1373· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that juvenile records sealed under 18 U.S.C. § 5038 may be disclosed in proceedings involving a transaction in which the juvenile was involved, but this holding is unnecessary and wrongly decided.
• Flowers v. State OF Ohio
  564 F.2d 748· 6th Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to allow cross-examination regarding suggestive out-of-court identifications violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Forbes v. Estelle
  559 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's claims concerned state procedural matters that did not amount to a denial of fundamental fairness, and thus were not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Martin v. Estelle
  541 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-05 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the errors of a rap sheet being seen by jurors and a juror speaking with a police officer were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Suchy
  540 F.2d 254· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-18 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while there was insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction, the convictions on the substantive counts were supported by independent evidence and thus affirmed.
• Caldwell v. State OF Minn.
  536 F.2d 272· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to allow cross-examination regarding a prosecution witness's current address and place of employment did not deny the defendant his right to confrontation, as disclosure might endanger the witness and the defendant showed no particula
• United States v. Shaw
  518 F.2d 1182· 4th Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if the introduction of a co-defendant's statement violated the Sixth Amendment, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict.
• Thompson v. McMANUS
  512 F.2d 769· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-21 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the search of the appellant's home was proper.
• Snyder v. Ira M. Coiner
  510 F.2d 224· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's limitation on cross-examination, even if an abuse of discretion, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the denial of a motion to disqualify a juror was not a due process violation.
• McDONALD v. The United States
  507 F.2d 1271· Ct. Cl.· 1974-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the plaintiff's court-martial conviction on count one because the alleged procedural defects did not rise to a constitutional level and the military reviewing authorities acted in accordance with regulations.
• United States v. Nick
  503 F.2d 418· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's incarceration did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, and the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion.