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

• Spears v. State
  301 So. 2d 24· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-09-30 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement, testified to by an officer, was inadmissible hearsay and a violation of the right of confrontation.
• United States v. de Lazo
  497 F.2d 1168· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-30 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction of the defendants for conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court's jury instructions did not constitute plain error.
• POE v. Turner
  490 F.2d 329· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of prior trial testimony of absent witnesses was permissible because the state made a good faith effort to locate them, satisfying the confrontation clause requirements.
• United States v. Jones
  490 F.2d 207· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-03 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the issues regarding disclosure of the presentence report and due process rights were not properly before it on appeal from a Rule 35 motion for sentence reduction.
• Ellenmae Crow v. Cal. Dep't OF Human Res. Dev.
  490 F.2d 580· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-14 ·cited 4×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court should have affirmed the district court's judgment requiring a due process hearing before termination of unemployment benefits.
• United States v. West
  486 F.2d 468· 6th Cir.· 1973-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecution's opening statement and calling of a reluctant witness did not constitute reversible error, and that any error in admitting evidence from challenged searches was harmless.
• United States v. Denver Gene Richardson
  484 F.2d 1046· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-18 ·cited 4×
  A registrant's duty to report for a physical examination under a I-A classification is not relieved by a prima facie showing that the classification was improper.
• United States v. Holt
  483 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statements, which tended to inculpate the appellant and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• State v. Barnes
  280 So. 2d 46· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-07-11 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State of Florida sought certiorari review of a trial judge's pre-trial order admitting a deceased witness's sworn statement taken by the defendant's counsel without notice to the prosecution. The court upheld admission of the statement, finding it admissible under Florida law
• Santoro v. United States
  462 F.2d 612· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the right of confrontation, ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicting interests, and sentencing based on secret information were without merit.
• Miller v. Cardwell
  448 F.2d 186· 6th Cir.· 1971-09-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's recorded statement, which the defendant orally ratified, was permissible as evidence against the defendant, especially given the jury instructions.
• United States ex rel. Horace Laws v. Yeager
  448 F.2d 74· 3d Cir.· 1971-03-31 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the exclusion of a single spectator (the witness's mother) during cross-examination, the denial of severance, and the jury instruction regarding juvenile transgressions did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The court also found the search warr
• Madry v. Sorel
  440 F.2d 1329· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-26 ·cited 4×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court held that the order denying summary judgment was not a final judgment and therefore not appealable, nor was it an appealable denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Owens v. Eyman
  434 F.2d 1062· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The introduction of prior testimony from an unavailable witness, who was subject to cross-examination at a previous trial, does not violate the confrontation clause if the prosecution made a good-faith effort to secure the witness's presence.
• United States v. Newsome
  432 F.2d 51· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-30 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the warrantless arrest and seizure of whiskey were lawful, and the trial court did not err in refusing to disclose the identity of a messenger who relayed information from an informant.
• United States v. Phillips
  432 F.2d 973· 8th Cir.· 1970-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) was constitutional and supported by sufficient evidence.
• Smith v. United States
  431 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1970-09-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the Bruton issue, search and seizure, and sentencing errors were without merit and affirmed the denial of his motion to vacate sentence.
• Anderson Charles v. Winton M. Blount
  430 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-07 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court was justified in granting summary judgment because the employee failed to request cross-examination of a witness during the administrative hearing.
• United States ex rel. Bernard Cheeks v. Russell
  424 F.2d 647· 3d Cir.· 1970-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the failure to give limiting instructions to the jury regarding the use of accomplice confessions, even if Cheeks' confession was found involuntary, did not constitute a denial of due process or federal constitutional error.
• United States ex rel. John Oliver v. Rundle
  417 F.2d 305· 3d Cir.· 1969-10-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the transcript of a witness's prior testimony, given at a proceeding where the defendant had an opportunity for cross-examination, is admissible at trial if the witness is unavailable and good faith efforts were made to locate them.
• United States ex rel. Charles Joseph v. LaVALLEE
  415 F.2d 150· 2d Cir.· 1969-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession, even if redacted, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• Wilson v. Bowie
  408 F.2d 1105· 9th Cir.· 1969-03-27 ·cited 4×
  The use of a preliminary hearing transcript at trial, without a showing that the witness was unavailable, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Peterson v. Gaughan
  404 F.2d 1375· 1st Cir.· 1968-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner waived his right to challenge the admission of hearsay evidence by failing to move to strike it after conditional admission, and that the statutory definition of a sexually dangerous person and the equal protection claims lacked merit.
• United States ex rel. James F. O'Callahan v. Parker
  390 F.2d 360· 3d Cir.· 1968-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained via interrogatories, even if constitutionally impermissible, was harmless error because the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming and undisputed, and thus did not contribute to the verdict.
• McNAMARA v. Remenyi
  391 F.2d 128· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-28 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court should not have ordered the granting of security clearance before the administrative agency had completed further proceedings, especially when constitutional issues of separation of powers were involved.
• United States v. Wolcoff
  379 F.2d 521· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-02 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the severance of a co-defendant did not deny effective assistance of counsel and that cross-examination restrictions were not prejudicial.
• Rierra v. United States
  357 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The admission of out-of-court statements by a non-defendant witness, Joseph Vinet, through other witnesses, constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, requiring reversal.
• Freddy Green v. Bomar
  329 F.2d 796· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a denial of a preliminary hearing and alleged police brutality do not constitute grounds for federal habeas corpus relief when they do not affect the validity of the conviction.
• United States v. Davis
  262 F.2d 871· 7th Cir.· 1959-01-29 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excising portions of Jencks Act material, in denying a new trial based on a reversed prior conviction, or in limiting cross-examination of government witnesses.
• Lowery v. United States
  258 F.2d 194· 9th Cir.· 1958-07-21 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record for review, rendering it impossible to assess the merits of his claims.
• United States v. Bourjaily
  167 F.2d 993· 7th Cir.· 1948-05-19 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that striking a witness's entire testimony and denying further cross-examination, after the witness recanted and claimed threats, was prejudicial error.
• Burgess v. King
  130 F.2d 761· 8th Cir.· 1942-10-01 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner received a full and fair hearing and that the admission of affidavits without objection was not error.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Little Rock Furniture MFG. Co.
  123 F.2d 868· 8th Cir.· 1941-11-28 ·cited 4×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that it would not decide contempt charges based solely on affidavits and appointed a Special Master to take testimony.
• In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
  346 So. 3d 1105· Fla.· 2022-07-14 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted permanent and expanded amendments to multiple Florida court procedure rules authorizing remote participation in court proceedings through communication technology, implemented effective October 1, 2022. The amendments, developed by a COVID-19 con
• Schluck v. State
  329 So. 3d 231· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-11-03 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for burglary and sexual battery, finding that the trial court improperly admitted a recording of the victim's statement to the police. The court held the statement was inadmissible hearsay because it did not qualify as an excited utteranc
• Baugh v. State
  253 So. 3d 761· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-08-24 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The trial court did not commit fundamental error by continuing the sentencing hearing to permit the victim to be heard, and the admission of the victim's unsworn statement, though erroneous, did not constitute fundamental error where the record does not show the court relied on i
• In re Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF Juv. Procedure 8.150
  184 So. 3d 1116· Fla.· 2016-02-11 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court approved proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.150 governing contempt in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The amendments conform the rule to statutory changes and add substantive protections for juveniles, including counsel entitle
• Trahn Bowens v. State
  80 So. 3d 1056· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-02-01 ·cited 3×
  Trahn Bowens appeals his strong-arm robbery conviction on two grounds: that a surreptitious recording of a conversation violated Crawford v. Washington, and that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial motion after the State referenced a BOLO. The Fourth District affirmed, ho
• G.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  935 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-08-15 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  G.T., a dependent child in DCFS custody, appeals his involuntary commitment to a residential mental health treatment facility. The court reversed, holding that DCFS failed to present competent evidence of a diagnosed mental disorder, relying instead solely on hearsay from a psych
• Grossman v. Crosby
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1233· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-31 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court denied Petitioner Martin E. Grossman's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Cipriano v. State
  883 So. 2d 363· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-09-29 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  Keith Cipriano appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his conviction for solicitation to commit first degree murder. The court reverses in part and remands, finding that Cipriano stated legally sufficient claims of ineffective assistance of
• Ritchie v. State
  720 So. 2d 261· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-09-28 ·cited 3×
  Donna Ritchie was convicted of capital sexual battery against her young son based partly on the child's videotaped testimony. The court reverses and remands for a new trial because the trial court failed to make statutorily required, individualized findings of necessity for using
• United States v. Farley
  992 F.2d 1122· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing closed circuit testimony for the child victim and admitting certain hearsay statements, as these rulings were supported by the evidence and relevant legal standards.
• United States v. Sarbello
  985 F.2d 716· 3d Cir.· 1993-02-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Eighth Amendment requires a proportionality analysis for RICO forfeitures, and that the defendants made a prima facie showing of disproportionality, requiring remand for further analysis. The court also held that the indictment provided adequate notice of
• Griffin v. Spratt
  969 F.2d 16· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  Prison officials did not violate a prisoner's due process rights by discarding seized fermented beverages because there was no evidence of bad faith in their destruction, and reliance on an officer's testimony about the beverages was permissible in a disciplinary proceeding.
• United States v. Bourgeois
  950 F.2d 980· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that the trial judge did not err in pretrial, trial, or post-trial rulings, nor did the sentencing judge abuse his discretion.
• Mitchell v. Hoke
  930 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 3×
  The admission of hearsay testimony concerning a lineup identification by a witness who did not testify violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Fidel Barragan Vargas
  933 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's procedure for presenting informant testimony violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and that the confrontation clause violations were not harmless error.
• United States v. Wright
  904 F.2d 403· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting lay witness testimony for identification and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated.
• Tullis v. State
  556 So. 2d 1165· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-30 ·cited 3×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting impeachment of a state witness regarding past delusions and in excluding the testimony of a defense psychologist, nor was the sentence vindictive.