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. Morlang
  531 F.2d 183· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-30 ·cited 74×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony for impeachment purposes under recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Menichino
  497 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-29 ·cited 74×
  Incriminating statements volunteered by a defendant during booking, after being advised of Miranda rights and requesting an attorney, are admissible if not made in response to interrogation about criminal activity. The admission of a co-conspirator's hearsay statement is permissi
• United States v. Ruggiero
  472 F.2d 599· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defense access to grand jury testimony of witnesses, as there was no suppression of exculpatory evidence and the defense had means to obtain the testimony.
• United States v. Rizzo
  418 F.2d 71· 7th Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 74×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the admission of Elia's statement was not plain error despite Miranda issues due to lack of specific objection, and co-conspirator statements and state conviction records were admissible or harmless error.
• United States v. Serrano
  870 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 72×
  The court held that Serrano and Boscio's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, but Stamps' conviction was tainted by inadmissible hearsay, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Neff
  615 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 72×
  A taxpayer's wholesale assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on an income tax return, without demonstrating a real and appreciable danger of incrimination, does not constitute a valid defense to a charge of willful failure to file.
• United States v. Opager
  589 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the erroneous exclusion of business records and the government's failure to disclose an informant's whereabouts constituted reversible error.
• Sanford Thomas v. Wyrick
  535 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-28 ·cited 72×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in reversing the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the possibility of prejudice too speculative.
• United States v. Julita De Parias
  805 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 71×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction existed under the Hobbs Act, and that limitations on cross-examination, admission of photographs, evidence of flight, co-defendant statements, and compelled hair samples were not reversible error.
• United States v. Barlow
  693 F.2d 954· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the appellant's alibi statement, denying a mistrial, admitting grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5), or denying a new trial motion.
• United States v. Wellington
  754 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 70×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings on the indictment amendment, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, severance, sufficiency of evidence, Speedy Trial Act claims, juror questionnaire use, or other miscellaneous assi
• United States v. Becton
  751 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) conviction and the first Travel Act conviction, but not the second Travel Act conviction. The court also found no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or indictment defects.
• United States v. Tille
  729 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-29 ·cited 70×
  The court held that proof of an agreement to commit a substantive RICO violation is sufficient for a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and that coconspirator statements made during the conspiracy's concealment efforts are admissible.
• United States v. Singer
  660 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that while the admission of a ten-year-old prior conviction was an abuse of discretion, it was harmless error, and that the denial of motions for acquittal and severance was proper.
• United States v. Fleming
  594 F.2d 598· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-13 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of interlocking confessions from co-defendants was not a Bruton violation, and any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence. However, for one defendant, the admission of co-defendants' confessions was prejudicial and warranted a new tri
• United States v. West
  574 F.2d 1131· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the admission of grand jury testimony violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.
• United States v. Amos P. Brown, Sr.
  548 F.2d 1194· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 70×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of IRS agent testimony, based on out-of-court statements from taxpayers and testifying from memory, constituted inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial "other crimes" evidence, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Barnes
  486 F.2d 776· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 70×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government has a duty to make reasonable efforts to make a material informant witness available for interview or testimony if the informant participated in or witnessed the offense, and the defendant did not waive this right.
• United States v. Weber
  437 F.2d 327· 3d Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·cited 69×
  The court held that consolidating indictments was proper and admitting hearsay statements from a deceased co-conspirator did not violate the defendant's rights.
• United States v. Lloyd
  431 F.2d 160· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-28 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the Selective Service file into evidence and in quashing subpoenas for board members, as judicial review of classification is limited to the record and 'basis in fact'. The court also found no prejudice in the handling
• United States v. James T. Licavoli (82-3498)
  725 F.2d 1040· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 68×
  A defendant can be convicted under RICO even if acquitted of predicate state offenses or unable to be convicted of both under state law.
• United States v. DeLUCA
  692 F.2d 1277· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 68×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) must be reversed due to a prior definition of 'explosive' and that a multiple-object conspiracy conviction fails if any object is legally insufficient. However, other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Fielding
  645 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements by alleged co-conspirators, which were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, constituted reversible error under the hearsay rule.
• Damon v. State
  397 So. 2d 1224· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-05-12 ·cited 68×
  Damon and Ladler were convicted of third-degree murder and burglary arising from the brutal 1976 murder of Wiley Swiney, where both defendants confessed to their respective roles. The defendants appealed challenging the joint trial, the admissibility of each other's confessions,
• United States v. Goodman
  605 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court also found that limitations
• United States v. Hitsman
  604 F.2d 443· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-15 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or motions.
• United States v. Sol Mayer
  556 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the district court's undue restriction of the defendant's cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses, concerning their motivation for testifying, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, and this error, compounded by a jury ins
• United States v. Anderson
  509 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the warrantless search was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the use of an in camera hearing to protect informant identity was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Squella-Avendano
  478 F.2d 433· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-13 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient for reasonable jurors to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed and imported cocaine, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary and procedura
• United States v. Puco
  476 F.2d 1099· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 68×
  The court clarified that its prior decision did not create a new, unworkable test for admitting co-conspirator declarations, but rather suggested a reliability inquiry consistent with existing precedent.
• United States v. Williams
  447 F.2d 1285· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 68×
  The admission of expert witness testimony based on records not themselves introduced into evidence is permissible under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and federal hearsay rules, provided the expert is available for cross-examination and the sources are reasonably reli
• United States v. Glasser
  443 F.2d 994· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-21 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed Glasser's conviction on the conspiracy count but reversed his convictions on the extortion counts, finding that while some evidentiary errors occurred, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence for the conspiracy charge.
• United States v. Carmine Persico
  425 F.2d 1375· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying a mistrial due to publicity, limiting cross-examination of witnesses for safety reasons, admitting evidence of other crimes, or denying dismissal based on repeated retrials and delay.
• United States v. Danzey
  594 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 67×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that evidence of similar acts was admissible to prove identity and that a witness's identification testimony, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient to support a conviction.
• United States v. Fuentes
  563 F.2d 527· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 67×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that tape recordings were admissible, the informant's absence did not violate confrontation rights, and the trial court did not err in refusing a second competency examination.
• Ignacio v. People OF the Territory OF Guam
  413 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 67×
  The court held that while the admission of co-defendants' extrajudicial statements at a joint trial may violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, such a violation can be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming. The court also held that the appe
• Jerone Hunter v. State
  8 So. 3d 1052· Fla.· 2008-09-25 ·cited 66×
  Jerone Hunter was convicted of six first-degree murders and sentenced to death for his participation in a brutal home invasion where six victims were beaten to death with baseball bats. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentences, finding his procedural
• United States v. Lanese
  890 F.2d 1284· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed convictions for extortionate debt collection but remanded Lanese's sentence for specific findings on the number of participants and reversed Romano's sentence for resentencing due to an erroneous managerial enhancement.
• United States v. Kennedy
  714 F.2d 968· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 66×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the accumulation of evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of rape and felony murder, and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Raineri
  670 F.2d 702· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in pretrial or trial rulings, and that the evidence was sufficient.
• United States v. Cole
  449 F.2d 194· 8th Cir.· 1971-10-05 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, discovery denials were not an abuse of discretion, cross-examination was properly limited, and the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive.
• United States v. Germaine Haili
  443 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 66×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for smuggling, illegal transportation, and conspiracy to smuggle and transport marijuana were affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• State v. Madison Lee Reynolds
  238 So. 2d 598· Fla.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 66×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a prisoner incarcerated in another state is "in custody" within the meaning of Florida's Rule 1.850 post-conviction relief procedures and approved the District Court of Appeal's decision permitting such a prisoner to seek post-conviction relief
• United States v. Schor
  418 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-06 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the appellant's conviction for bribery was based on sufficient evidence, the procedure used to answer jury questions in writing, outside the presence of the defendant and counsel, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Aiken
  373 F.2d 294· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-20 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony after a witness invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, nor in its jury instructions regarding illegal importation, reasonable doubt, or multiple conspiracies. Severance was not required for Cole, an
• Washington v. United States
  275 F.2d 687· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-11 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant was not entrapped and that he acted as a seller, not merely a purchasing agent.
• State v. Hollingsworth
  108 Fla. 607· Fla.· 1933-03-09 ·cited 66×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of certiorari vacating the State Board of Medical Examiners' revocation of Dr. Tullidge's medical license, holding that the Board violated statutory procedural requirements by failing to properly serve the accused with charges,
• United States v. Leyva
  513 F.2d 774· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 65×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the 35-year sentence for criminal contempt was excessive and an abuse of discretion, modifying it to 2 years, and affirmed the conviction.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Vidal Galdon Aquino
  378 F.2d 540· 3d Cir.· 1967-05-19 ·cited 65×
  The court held that a statement obtained from a suspect in custody, after he requested counsel and before he had an opportunity to consult one, is inadmissible under Escobedo. The court also held that prior testimony of an unavailable witness, subjected to cross-examination, is a
• United States v. Garcia-Rosa
  876 F.2d 209· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 64×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. However, it found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain extrinsic act evidence.