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. Morgan
  757 F.2d 1074· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the examination of a government informant, as the limitations did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  756 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that compelling a voice exemplar does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments and that the contempt hearing provided sufficient due process.
• Carlos v. Wyrick
  753 F.2d 691· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of testimony from a prosecution witness who refused to identify his accomplice violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the withheld information was not collateral.
• United States v. Meros
  613 F. Supp. 18· M.D. Fla.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that defendants and their counsel intentionally violated the court's order by pursuing objections in Swiss courts and enjoined them from further frustrating the deposition process, reserving sanctions for future violations.
• United States v. Leocadio Figueroa
  750 F.2d 232· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding telephone conversations, which constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause, was prejudicial error requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Frascone
  747 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were not reversible due to prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary rulings, or instructional errors, affirming the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Houser
  746 F.2d 55· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that the BATF tracer form 7520.5 was inadmissible hearsay and its admission was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Perry
  740 F.2d 854· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 2×
• Brantley v. McKASKLE
  722 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The federal court must defer to state court findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but may independently review conclusions of law regarding confession voluntariness.
• Leevonn Cloud v. Trs. OF Boston Univ.
  720 F.2d 721· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the university's disciplinary hearing procedures did not violate the student's contract rights or statutory privacy rights, and thus summary judgment for the university was appropriate.
• Featherstone v. State
  440 So. 2d 457· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-11-02 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Featherstone appeals his probation revocation and sentence, challenging the trial court's refusal to require disclosure of anonymous witnesses' identities during the revocation hearing. The appellate court holds that the State must establish confidential informant status through
• Bradford v. State
  435 So. 2d 962· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-08-05 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  David Leon Bradford appeals the revocation of his probation and imposition of a consecutive three-year sentence for uttering a forged instrument. The court reversed, finding that Bradford was denied due process because the probation revocation hearing was conducted without proper
• United States v. Marquez
  687 F.2d 328· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the seizure of the shotgun was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest and under the plain view doctrine, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or mistrial due to a witness's unavailability.
• United States v. Anderson Dewell Parsons
  646 F.2d 1275· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy petition was admissible evidence and that the district court did not err in its handling of the defendant's direct examination or in refusing a jury instruction on debtor's ability to repay for most counts. However, convictions on two counts wer
• Black v. Woods
  651 F.2d 528· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecution's calling of a witness who refused to testify did not violate due process, nor did the admission of her prior statements violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause, as the defendant forfeited that right.
• United States ex rel. Curtis Houston v. Warden, Stateville Corr. Ctr., & Ill. Prisoner Review Bd.
  635 F.2d 656· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  A prisoner serving a determinate sentence is not entitled to greater due process safeguards than those afforded to a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence before being deprived of good-time credit.
• United States v. Withers
  637 F.2d 445· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to allow cross-examination of the complaining witness regarding a prior misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction, as it was relevant to showing the witness's motive to fabricate the kidnapping charge.
• United States v. Vasquez-Ramirez
  629 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in suppressing unsigned depositions of material witnesses because the government failed to make a good faith effort to secure their attendance at trial.
• United States v. Hoyt Powell
  611 F.2d 41· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 2×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  A district court may proceed with a trial in absentia when a defendant, initially present, voluntarily absents himself without a compelling reason after being notified of the trial date.
• Elliott v. Thompson
  599 F.2d 767· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the confession voluntary and any Bruton Rule violation to be harmless error.
• State of Fla. ex rel. Archie McCRIMMON v. Lester
  354 So. 2d 381· Fla.· 1977-12-23 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus filed by indigent criminal defendants challenging trial court orders that denied funding for deposition copies and refused non-waiver continuances. The Court held that while defendants have a right to discovery, they cannot requ
• Simpson v. Kreiger
  565 F.2d 390· 6th Cir.· 1977-11-25 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's arguments for habeas corpus relief were without merit, affirming the district court's denial of his petition.
• Reddy v. Jones
  572 F.2d 979· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court, in dissent, argues that the denial of rehearing en banc was improper because the lower court's reasoning regarding the non-disclosure of witness inducements and exculpatory statements violated due process principles.
• Algeroy A. Rozell v. Estelle
  554 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state's evidentiary rule prohibiting inquiry into a rape victim's prior sexual acts does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the inquiry would raise collateral issues and confuse the jury.
• United States v. Baynes
  548 F.2d 481· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-01 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Affirmance by judgment order without an opinion does not constitute a denial of due process.
• Azbill v. Pogue
  534 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-06 ·cited 2×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel's decision not to extensively cross-examine a key witness regarding juvenile offenses, due to trial court restrictions, did not constitute a deliberate bypass of state remedies.
• United States v. Hart
  526 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the magistrate was not required to permit cross-examination to elicit the informer's identity and that the confrontation clause was not violated by refusal to produce a written statement.
• Galloway v. Lou V. Brewer
  525 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the State must produce all working materials related to a polygraph examination, and if their exclusion prejudiced the defendant, a new trial must be ordered.
• Grimes v. State
  321 So. 2d 584· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-10-10 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Tarantino v. State
  311 So. 2d 789· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-04-15 ·cited 2×
• The N. Am. Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  512 F.2d 238· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the criminal contempt convictions of over 700 miners were invalid due to fundamental due process violations, including lack of proper notice, failure to state essential facts, and improper burden of proof.
• Hill v. State
  297 So. 2d 58· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-06-26 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction relief allegations.
• United States v. Kitchen
  488 F.2d 572· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's failure to produce a material informant, Sammy Floyd, at trial, without demonstrating genuine inability through reasonable efforts, constitutes reversible error requiring a new trial or further proceedings.
• Stubbs v. Louie L. Wainwright
  468 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-14 ·cited 2×
• Gorum v. Craven
  465 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting preliminary hearing testimony without a good faith effort to secure the witness's presence violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States ex rel. Arthur E. Martin H-4387 v. Brierley
  464 F.2d 529· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of confrontation, and improper appellate procedure were without merit.
• Williams v. Craven
  460 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his claims.
• Blackburn v. State
  261 So. 2d 861· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-05-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
• Cota v. Eyman
  453 F.2d 691· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury, when the prosecution knows the witness will do so, is impermissible if it adds critical weight to the prosecution's case not subject to cross-examination.
• Taylor v. United States
  452 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-30 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's allegations did not necessitate an evidentiary hearing for withdrawal of her guilty pleas.
• Webb v. State
  253 So. 2d 715· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-10-27 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  David Webb was convicted of robbery, use of a firearm in felony, and aggravated assault based in part on hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding the ownership of a vehicle allegedly used in one of three robberies. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new tria
• United States ex rel. John Mascia v. Hon. John Zelker
  450 F.2d 166· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-22 ·cited 2×
  A guilty plea, entered with effective counsel, waives most constitutional claims, including those arising from a co-defendant's confession, unless the coercion has an 'abiding impact' on the plea.
• United States v. Jackson
  452 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Jencks Act, which precludes pretrial discovery of government witness statements, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and the timing of production under the Act did not prejudice the defendant.
• Zide v. State
  253 So. 2d 917· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-09-14 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Zide appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial, rejecting all of Zide's claims including denial of counsel, due process violations, defects in the information, trial counsel incompetence, use of
• United States v. Ketchum
  445 F.2d 860· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting a photographic copy of a vehicle's title certificate was not erroneous, as it was not crucial evidence and the vehicle's identity was otherwise undisputed.
• United States ex rel. Robert Favre v. Henderson
  444 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief without determining if the alleged hearsay testimony deprived the defendant of a fundamentally fair trial.
• United States v. Sheets
  443 F.2d 353· 8th Cir.· 1971-06-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction for securities fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy.
• Little v. Rhay
  439 F.2d 765· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the warrantless search was reasonable under the pre-Chimel totality of the circumstances test and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus.
• Irvin v. State
  246 So. 2d 592· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-03-12 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by the warnings given before interrogation, the voluntariness of his statement, or the procedure involving a co-defendant's identification.
• In re Penn
  443 F.2d 663· D.C. Cir.· 1970-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's own testimony, admitting mental illness and detailing incidents involving threats and a penknife, was sufficient competent evidence to support the jury's finding that he was likely to injure himself or others, thus affirming his commitment.