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. Charles V. Ushery (91-5716) & Benjamin R. Burton (91-5715)
  968 F.2d 575· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motions to suppress, the convictions, and the sentence, finding that the encounters were consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause, and that the evidence and sentencing were proper.
• United States v. Montoya
  967 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation and Fifth Amendment due process claims by failing to raise them in the district court, and the sentencing court did not commit plain error by relying on reliable hearsay.
• United States v. Huei Mei Wang
  964 F.2d 811· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions taken before the defendant was aware of the specific charges violated her Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination, warranting a new trial.
• FOY v. J.F. Donnelly
  959 F.2d 1307· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the content of an accomplice's confession was not disclosed to the jury to the extent necessary to violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for armed robbery, and the prosecutor d
• Campbell v. Blodgett
  978 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial, including jury selection, can be knowingly and voluntarily waived, even in a capital case, as long as it does not implicate Confrontation Clause issues.
• Valenci Williams v. State
  593 So. 2d 1189· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-02-18 ·cited 2×
  Valenci Williams appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the trial court's admission of his nontestifying codefendant's custodial statement as substantive evidence against him. The court reverses, finding the admission violated Williams's Sixth Amendment Confronta
• United States v. Moore
  954 F.2d 379· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant, nor in its jury instructions or rulings on prosecutorial comments.
• United States v. Evans
  950 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a non-testifying witness's statement as substantive evidence of guilt for gun possession constituted prejudicial hearsay, requiring reversal of those convictions.
• Martinez v. McCAUGHTRY
  951 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of the co-defendant's statements did not violate the appellant's confrontation clause rights because the statements were not offered for their truth (non-hearsay) or, alternatively, were admissible under the excited utterance exception.
• Escalona v. State
  588 So. 2d 337· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-11-12 ·cited 2×
• United States v. A & S Council OIL Co.
  947 F.2d 1128· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while polygraph results are generally inadmissible to prove the truth of their results, a defendant should be allowed to cross-examine an expert witness about polygraph results the expert considered in forming an opinion about a key government witness's credib
• Graham v. Hoke
  946 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Cruz rule regarding the admission of codefendant confessions in joint trials should be applied retroactively, but that the admission of the codefendant's confession in this case was harmless error given the strength of the other evidence.
• United States v. Mokol
  939 F.2d 436· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying admission of the murdered witness's prior testimony, as the government failed to provide adequate corroboration.
• United States v. Diaz
  936 F.2d 786· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the alien status of the individuals transported and the defendant's knowledge of their illegal status beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Campbell
  935 F.2d 39· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that co-defendant statements were properly admitted, that the school-zone statute is constitutional, and that sentencing calculations were appropriate.
• Sherley v. Seabold
  929 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability with a good-faith effort and the hearsay lacked sufficient indicia of reliabilit
• Bagby v. Kuhlman
  932 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause if the defendant had a prior ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the witness's subsequent recantation is deemed untrustworthy.
• United States v. Brown
  927 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, and that the defendant's other assignments of error lacked merit.
• Paul v. State
  574 So. 2d 1194· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-02-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Disinger v. State
  574 So. 2d 268· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-02-07 ·cited 2×
  Robert Disinger, a criminal defendant convicted of sexual battery and indecent assault, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation on direct appeal. The court granted
• Layton v. State OF S.D.
  918 F.2d 739· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by his state court conviction or sentencing.
• Disinger v. State
  569 So. 2d 824· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding that while the use of a screen obscuring the defendant's view of witnesses might violate the Sixth Amendment, such an issue should have been raised on direct appeal and was not grounds for post-conviction
• Asberry v. State
  568 So. 2d 86· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-10-10 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Curtis Lee Asberry was convicted of robbery with a weapon and grand theft based partly on hearsay testimony from a non-testifying witness identifying him as the perpetrator. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the admission of the victim's and officer's
• Reddy v. Coombe
  916 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a non-testifying codefendant's incriminating statements at a joint trial violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even if the statements interlock, if they are not substantially the same and consistent on the major elements of the crime.
• Barker v. Estelle
  913 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Barker's prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because jeopardy did not attach at his juvenile fitness hearing under the amended California statute, and his due process rights were not violated as the right of confrontation does not apply to s
• Jeffries v. Crispus C. NIX
  912 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior under the rape shield law, and any error in excluding evidence of delusions was harmless.
• Capps v. Collins
  900 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the exclusion of irrelevant evidence did not violate the right to confrontation, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to introduce inadmissible evidence.
• Wetz v. State
  561 So. 2d 1190· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court held that the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's statements, even if later deemed inadmissible under new precedent, was not error if the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the codefendant.
• Reutter v. Solem
  888 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's pending sentence commutation hearing, which could have been used for impeachment, constituted a Brady violation because the undisclosed evidence was material to the outcome of the trial.
• Cook v. State
  548 So. 2d 257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court should reverse the conviction because the use of a screen between the defendant and child witnesses violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
• Henderson v. A.L. Lockhart
  864 F.2d 1447· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that Henderson was denied effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his appeal, and that the underlying issue had merit.
• United States v. Sokoloff
  696 F. Supp. 1451· S.D. Fla.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that defendants failed to raise a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, and therefore denied their motion for bond pending appeal.
• Gholston v. Jones
  848 F.2d 1156· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the parole revocation was constitutionally sound, as the parolee had waived certain rights and the supervisor's report, containing an admission, was sufficiently reliable.
• United States v. Freidin
  849 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a memorandum was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) because it was not shown to have been made pursuant to a regular practice of the business, even if it possessed indicia of trustworthiness.
• Reddy v. Coombe
  846 F.2d 866· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the inference that the petitioner intended to rob the victim, thus sustaining his felony murder conviction.
• United States v. DeWATER
  846 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that intoxilyzer test results are admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically the public records and reports exception, and do not violate the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Valladares v. United States
  841 F.2d 1089· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the claim based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel related to alibi and testimony, but remanded for findings on the interpreter and language barrier claims.
• United States v. Songer
  842 F.2d 240· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The imposition of a forfeiture sentence in absentia violates Rule 43(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the rule does not permit exceptions for sentencing.
• United States v. Spivey
  841 F.2d 799· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by limiting cross-examination, nor did it deprive him of a fair trial by allegedly destroying his counsel's credibility.
• M.C. v. State
  516 So. 2d 1076· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  A juvenile appellant was adjudicated delinquent for petit theft in a hearing conducted in her absence, despite her attorney's objection and request that she be taken into custody. The court reversed, holding that Florida law does not permit adjudicatory hearings to proceed withou
• United States v. Smith
  831 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Boggs v. Evitts
  818 F.2d 534· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding the constitutional challenge to the Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure, requiring dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Pickett v. Bowen
  798 F.2d 1385· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted the writ of habeas corpus because the medical report was crucial evidence, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate the declarant's unavailability or establish sufficient indicia of reliability.
• Busby v. Holt
  781 F.2d 1475· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the prosecutor calling a witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, as other evidence already established the inferences the prosecution sought.
• United States v. McCALLUM
  788 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury charge, affirming the defendant's conviction.
• Wilson v. State
  479 So. 2d 273· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-12-06 ·cited 2×
  Edward Lee Wilson, Jr. was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping after a trial in which the state introduced a videotaped deposition of the victim that was taken without notice to Wilson or his jailer and without Wilson's presence. The court reversed the conviction, holding t
• Busby v. Holt
  771 F.2d 1461· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's misconduct in calling a witness who intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and the trial court's error in permitting this, constituted a constitutional violation that was not harmless error.
• Carlton Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright
  760 F.2d 1148· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the application of the confrontation clause rule to the facts of this case was misplaced.
• Saccomanno v. Scully
  758 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court failed to defer to the state appellate court's implied factual determination that the defendant's disruptive behavior justified his exclusion from the courtroom.
• Mechler v. Procunier
  754 F.2d 1294· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the state made a good faith effort to secure the witness and the testimony bore sufficient indicia of reliabi