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

• Jackson v. United States
  439 F.2d 529· D.C. Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated because the codefendants testified and were subject to cross-examination, and that the trial judge's subsequent determination of voluntariness of the confession was sufficient.
• Duggar v. United States
  434 F.2d 345· 10th Cir.· 1970-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession, even if it implicated the defendant, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause because the codefendant was available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Santos
  430 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's hearsay statements, which were not powerfully incriminating to the defendant, did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
• Hudson v. United States
  429 F.2d 1311· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the contents of a tape recording were admissible and that a new claim not raised in the district court could not be considered on appeal.
• Alley v. United States
  426 F.2d 877· 8th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's motion to vacate his conviction, as his claims of improper indictment amendment, improper severance, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper use of a codefendant's confession lacked merit.
• Aulet v. United States
  425 F.2d 175· 7th Cir.· 1970-04-29 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding entrapment and the government's failure to produce an informant were previously decided or waived, and thus the denial of his motion to vacate sentence was proper.
• McHENRY v. United States
  420 F.2d 927· 10th Cir.· 1970-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's confession during a joint trial was not a constitutional violation when the codefendant testified and the appellant also confessed, negating the prejudice addressed in Bruton.
• Welton Vanhook v. Craven
  419 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-14 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions may warrant redetermination of claims previously rejected, and that the district court erred in not considering the merits of the Anders claim without the state court record.
• Fritzberg v. State
  416 F.2d 917· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner's sentence was not in excess of the statutory maximum and that he was not denied due process, as his case did not require a separate hearing like that in Specht v. Patterson.
• United States ex rel. David T. Felton v. Rundle
  410 F.2d 1300· 3d Cir.· 1969-05-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissent holds that the trial court's refusal to make a police report containing potentially exculpatory information available to the defense upon request violated due process.
• Frazier v. Langlois
  412 F.2d 766· 1st Cir.· 1969-03-20 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies for the issues raised in his habeas corpus petition.
• Gauthier v. Burke
  402 F.2d 459· 7th Cir.· 1968-10-08 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing.
• Hooper v. Swenson
  401 F.2d 352· 8th Cir.· 1968-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of an accomplice's statement was harmless error and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Olander Tuck
  380 F.2d 857· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government accorded reasonable cooperation in securing the informant's appearance and that the trial judge did not err in denying motions for a continuance or mistrial, nor did he violate the appellant's constitutional rights.
• Will Jones v. People OF the State OF Cal.
  364 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's counsel's stipulations and waivers at trial did not violate his constitutional rights, and the denial of his habeas corpus petition was correct.
• McINTOSH v. United States
  362 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Ohio court's vacation of the sentence and allowance for withdrawal of the guilty plea effectively nullified the judgment on the Iowa charge, thus precluding a double jeopardy claim for the subsequent Iowa trial.
• The United States v. Clayton Chem. & Packaging Co.
  357 F.2d 1009· C.C.P.A.· 1965-06-24 ·cited 2×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court should consider the appeal with the admitted affidavits, as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them, and the merchandise's United States value is based on its offering price.
• Thompson v. United States
  315 F.2d 689· 6th Cir.· 1963-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the grounds raised by the appellant were either not cognizable under a motion to vacate sentence, lacked factual support, or were not properly preserved.
• Perez v. State
  151 So. 2d 686· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-04-09 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying the defendant's motion for production of an informer or in admitting evidence from a search and seizure.
• Becker v. Webster
  171 F.2d 762· 2d Cir.· 1949-01-04 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the deviation from the Manual's requirement that the accused be present during witness examinations at a preliminary investigation was substantial enough to deprive the court-martial of jurisdiction.
• McCray v. State
  418 So. 3d 260· Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-08-13 ·cited 1×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  A trial court commits reversible error by excluding evidence of a prior violent incident when that evidence provides a plausible alternative explanation for injury evidence central to the prosecution's case and would allow the defendant to impeach key prosecution witnesses throug
• Bell v. State
  421 So. 3d 399· Fla.· 2025-07-08 ·cited 1×
  Michael Bernard Bell, convicted of two first-degree murders in 1993 and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief, which raised claims of newly discovered evidence in the form of Brady and Giglio violations based on alleged witness
• Nipper v. State
  398 So. 3d 600· Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-12-18 ·cited 1×
  Mathew Nipper was convicted of burglary and battery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court erred by allowing the State's entire case-in-chief to proceed without Nipper's presence when he was hos
• T.T.W. v. State
  47 Fla. L. Weekly D1409· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-09-30 ·cited 1×
  A juvenile defendant challenged his trial court's allowing a police officer to testify via Zoom without a case-specific finding of necessity, arguing this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court reversed and remanded, requiring the trial court to make expli
• Murphy v. State
  317 So. 3d 1255· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-05-05 ·cited 1×
  Evidence of a sexual assault victim's prior false or fabricated sexual assault allegation may be excluded without violating the Confrontation Clause where the prior incident lacks logical connection to the charged offense, involves different perpetrators and circumstances, and th
• A.A. v. State
  271 So. 3d 87· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-02-27 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Three juveniles appealed or petitioned against "do not run" orders issued in their delinquency cases. The court upheld the orders for S.F. and N.A., finding statutory authority in Florida's juvenile detention statutes, but reversed A.A.'s contempt conviction because the contempt
• Alden Mitchell Howard v. State
  254 So. 3d 1188· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-10-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the co-defendant's private jailhouse statements to friends were not testimonial and therefore did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that the statements were admissible under the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest.
• Knight v. State
  254 So. 3d 642· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-09-07 ·cited 1×
  A trial court's failure to make case-specific findings required by statute before allowing closed-circuit television testimony does not require reversal when not preserved for appeal and is not fundamental error. Additionally, a defendant's right to communicate with counsel durin
• Macomber v. State
  254 So. 3d 1098· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-08-30 ·cited 1×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Evidence that K.M. stated Macomber sexually abused both her and A.M. during the same criminal episode is relevant and admissible because it is inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes, not a collateral matter offered solely for impeachment. The trial court abused its disc
• Felice John Veach v. State
  254 So. 3d 624· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-08-30 ·cited 1×
  The trial court properly admitted the disputed portions of the jailhouse telephone call because they were relevant to establishing appellant's identity on the call, and any probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudicial effect. The trial court also properly restricted c
• Joseph v. State
  250 So. 3d 113· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-06-27 ·cited 1×
  Kevin Joseph appeals his conviction for aggravated battery, challenging the trial court's admission of a victim's recorded statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to hearsay. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the State failed to establish that
• Roberts v. State
  43 Fla. L. Weekly S34· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-05-16 ·cited 1×
  James Roberts appealed his conviction for three counts of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve and two counts of misdemeanor battery, challenging the trial court's admission of child-hearsay statements under Florida Statutes section 90.803(23). The appellate cou
• Grange v. State
  199 So. 3d 440· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-08-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a post-conviction movant does not possess the same constitutional rights as a criminal defendant, and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply in post-conviction relief proceedings.
• Flores v. State
  92 So. 3d 855· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-06-13 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Carlos Flores appeals his conviction for Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, raising multiple constitutional and procedural challenges. The court affirms the conviction, focusing its opinion on rejecting Flores' argument that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the chil
• Gusmao v. State
  48 So. 3d 93· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-10-29 ·cited 1×
  Fernando Gusmao appeals his conviction for grand theft of over $100,000. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the admission of hearsay evidence, the characterization of checks as worthless, or the sufficiency of evidence regarding crimin
• Marshall v. State
  45 So. 3d 470· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-01-20 ·cited 1×
• Washington v. State
  18 So. 3d 1221· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-10-07 ·cited 1×
  Randy Washington was convicted of acting as an unlicensed contractor after the State introduced a 'certificate of non-licensure' from the Florida Licensing Division. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that this certificate was a testimonial statement subject to the Confront
• Lena v. State
  901 So. 2d 227· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-04-13 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Manuel Lena appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child under twelve. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that a partial courtroom closure with a television link for excluded persons requires only a 'substan
• State v. Harris
  819 So. 2d 844· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-05-15 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State of Florida petitioned for a writ of certiorari to prevent disclosure of the specific location and type of surveillance equipment used in a drug transaction. The court denied the petition, holding that absent alternative evidence (such as a videotape), the defendant's Si
• Ogeda Dennis v. State
  782 So. 2d 939· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-03-28 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact, the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not renewing his objection prior to the victim's testimony.
• Brown v. State
  721 So. 2d 814· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-12-16 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  David Lee Brown was convicted of burglary with battery and aggravated battery based partly on pretrial depositions of two elderly victims who did not appear at trial. The court reversed because the trial judge erroneously admitted the depositions as evidence without Brown being p
• Mesa v. State
  673 So. 2d 51· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-03-13 ·cited 1×
  Manuel Mesa appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery, challenging the admission of statements he made after invoking his right to counsel. The Florida appellate court affirms, holding that Mesa's subsequent statements to a co-defendant an
• United States v. Anthony Medina (91-1852)
  992 F.2d 573· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-12 ·cited 1×
  The dissenting judge believes the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for using a telephone to facilitate a drug transaction when the defendant was already prosecuted for the underlying drug possession.
• Cloe v. State
  613 So. 2d 70· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-01-20 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jack Allen Cloe was convicted of DUI manslaughter. The court affirmed his conviction but reversed and remanded for resentencing because his 20-year sentence exceeded the guideline range and was based on improper aggravating factors.
• Ring v. Erickson
  983 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 1×
  The admission of two videotaped statements from a child victim, one under a medical diagnosis exception and the other under a special child hearsay exception, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the statements lacked sufficient indicia of relia
• Tinson v. State
  594 So. 2d 334· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-02-27 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Aaron Tinson appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a six-year-old child. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's admission of the child victim's hearsay statements under Florida's excited utterance exception and ruling that remain
• Adams v. R.S. Peterson
  939 F.2d 1369· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissent argues that the defendant's stipulation to facts mirroring the indictment constituted a de facto guilty plea, requiring the protections of Boykin v. Alabama, which were not afforded.
• Commonwealth OF THE N. Mariana Islands v. Young II Kawano (aka Eiichi Sai) (aka Eiichi Kawano)
  917 F.2d 379· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 1×
  The Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal for want of federal jurisdiction because the District Court lacked appellate jurisdiction over the convictions after the establishment of the Northern Mariana Islands Supreme Court.
• Rory Powell v. Honorable S. James Foxman
  528 So. 2d 91· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-07-07 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses and impeach their testimony outweighs the state's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of juvenile dependency hearing records.
• United States v. Gaffney
  676 F. Supp. 1544· M.D. Fla.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 1×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the cumulative effect of extraneous information and outside influences disclosed in the jury room created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, warranting a new trial.