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. Sanchez
  988 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-09
  The court held that the photographic identification was not impermissibly suggestive, the district court did not err in denying disclosure of the confidential informant, the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause did not require defense counsel's presence at an in camera interview,
• Stachniak v. Hayes
  989 F.2d 914· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or the denial of a new trial motion.
• United States v. Buckhalter
  986 F.2d 875· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-11 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, suppressing identification, removing a juror, or calculating sentences, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
• United States v. Thomas
  987 F.2d 1298· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-09 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that admitting a witness's prior inconsistent grand jury testimony as substantive evidence did not violate due process, nor did admitting the sawed-off shotgun or instructing the jury on constructive possession.
• United States v. Dent
  984 F.2d 1453· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that grand jury testimony, even if trustworthy, cannot be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 804(b)(5)) if it is specifically covered by another exception (Rule 804(b)(1)) and fails to meet that exception's requirements.
• Heath Williams v. State
  611 So. 2d 1337· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-01-13
  The court held that admitting a codefendant's confession, even after a statutory amendment to hearsay exceptions, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Feldewerth
  982 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-05
  The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded because the procedure below violated the Confrontation Clause.
• Siegfriedt v. Fair
  982 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-23
  The admission of a witness's tape-recorded testimony from a probable cause hearing, where the witness testified under an adopted name, did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and later impeach him once his
• United States v. Piche
  981 F.2d 706· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-25
  The court affirmed Lloyd Piche's conviction but vacated his sentence due to insufficient findings on restitution ability and improper guideline departure.
• United States v. Allie
  978 F.2d 1401· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-25
  The court held that the district court did not err in permitting the government to depose material witnesses under Fed.R.Crim.P. 15(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3144, nor in admitting the depositions and hearsay evidence at trial, nor in providing a supplemental jury instruction.
• Prewitt v. Goeke
  978 F.2d 1073· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-04 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violation regarding ex parte jury communications, state suppression of evidence, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Truman Aaron Grooms
  978 F.2d 425· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-28
  The court held that the admission of hearsay statements under the residual exception was not an abuse of discretion, the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause was satisfied, and the exclusion of impeachment evidence was proper.
• United States v. Pina
  974 F.2d 1241· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that amending an indictment mid-trial to correct a typographical error was a substantive change that prejudiced the defendant, justifying dismissal with prejudice, and that the denial of recross-examination was not an abuse of discretion.
• Brigette Karin Johnson v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  971 F.2d 340· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court should not deport an alien based on inadmissible evidence submitted by their attorney for a different purpose.
• Hopkins v. State
  608 So. 2d 33· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-07-23
  John Hopkins was convicted of three counts of sexual battery on a child under 12 and one count of lewd and lascivious handling. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's use of closed-circuit television for the child victim's testimony and admission of her out-of-court statement
• United States v. Carter
  973 F.2d 1509· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-20
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and the ex parte communication with the jury, while constitutional error, was harmless.
• United States v. Castro-Romero
  964 F.2d 942· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing a peremptory challenge against a black juror, permitting leading questions of a minor victim, or increasing the offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines for victim custody.
• Thomas v. Gunter
  962 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-28
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions of child victims did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the procedures met the standards set forth in Maryland v. Craig.
• Porter v. A.L. Lockhart
  961 F.2d 782· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that the state courts did not err in their conclusions regarding the identification procedures, arrest, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Summerfield
  961 F.2d 784· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court affirmed the judgment, but one judge questioned the reasoning regarding the use of testimony.
• Cary R. Ortberg v. Russel Moody
  961 F.2d 135· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-03
  A request for a Certificate of Probable Cause can serve as a notice of appeal, and a nolo contendere plea bars challenges to pre-plea constitutional violations not related to the plea's voluntariness.
• Fischer v. Powers
  957 F.2d 609· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-26
  The admission of a certified laboratory report into evidence, even without the direct testimony of the analyst, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause when the state provides a mechanism for the defendant to subpoena the analyst.
• United States v. Collin Taplin, Jr.
  954 F.2d 1256· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-29
  The court held that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness whose prior testimony was admitted, and therefore, admitting the testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle
  954 F.2d 581· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-23
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of a witness's prior sworn deposition testimony, as the prosecution made a good-faith effort to secure the witness's attendance and she was properly declared unavailable.
• United States v. Owens
  953 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-08
  The court held that a curative instruction to disregard hearsay statements was sufficient to cure any prejudice or confrontation clause violation, given the extensive evidence against the defendant and the minor nature of the disputed statements.
• United States v. Grady A. Thomas
  953 F.2d 107· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-19
  The court held that excluding the defendant and his attorney from an in camera hearing to determine the waiver of attorney-client privilege violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Blackmon v. State
  588 So. 2d 662· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-11-06 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to cross-examine the victim on certain matters by failing to obtain a ruling on the admissibility of proffered testimony.
• Millard Dale Jennings v. Maynard
  946 F.2d 1502· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-16
  The court held that the admission of an unavailable witness's out-of-court statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statement was reliable and fell within the statement-against-interest exception to hearsay.
• United States v. Esacove
  943 F.2d 3· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-11
  Statements made by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of a conspiracy, including concealment efforts, are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and do not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• Bienbenito Fernandez v. Leonardo
  931 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for his procedural default in failing to object to the admission of his co-defendant's statement at trial, and therefore, habeas relief was improperly granted.
• Gregory v. State
  573 So. 2d 73· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-12-28 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Willie Gregory was retried for aggravated assault after his first conviction was overturned due to lack of counsel. At retrial, the state introduced the victim's testimony from the first trial (when Gregory was unrepresented) without the victim appearing in person, depriving Greg
• Willhoite v. Vasquez
  921 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while the prosecutor's secret deal was objectionable, there was no reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the trial's outcome.
• Hardy v. Wigginton
  922 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-29
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that a child witness must testify in the physical presence of the trier of fact constitutes a 'new rule' that is not retroactively applicable on federal habeas review.
• United States v. Dugan
  902 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-15
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and sufficient evidence existed to support the mail fraud convictions.
• United States v. Hill
  901 F.2d 880· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-24
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession that implicates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and such error is not harmless if the evidence against the defendant is not overwhelming.
• United States v. James "Jimmie" Earl Aron
  904 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-04
  The court held that the district court's detention order was supported by the proceedings below and affirmed the order. The court found that the defendant's willful violation of release conditions was sufficient to support the conclusion that he would again violate court orders.
• Fricke v. State
  561 So. 2d 597· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-04-03
  William Fricke appeals his conviction for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault of a six-year-old child. The court reverses and remands because the trial court violated Fricke's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by allowing the child victim to testify via closed-cir
• Holmes v. State
  557 So. 2d 933· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-03-08
  Ernesto Holmes appeals his conviction for sexual battery, contending that the trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by withholding the victim's current address and place of employment. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that unde
• Eliassaint Mathieu v. State
  552 So. 2d 1157· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-11-07
  Eliassaint Mathieu appealed his conviction for armed robbery, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after testimony inadvertently revealed that non-testifying eyewitnesses had identified him by name, violating his Sixth Amendment right of confronta
• Stidum v. Trickey
  881 F.2d 582· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-09
  The court held that the admission of the victim's statements under the excited utterance exception did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the defendant's counsel's failure to object was not ineffective assistance.
• Giraldo-Rincon v. Dugger
  707 F. Supp. 504· M.D. Fla.· 1989-02-24
  The court held that the trial court's failure to inquire into the petitioner's ability to pay for and need for an interpreter, and subsequent denial of the request, violated his constitutional rights to due process and confrontation.
• Hopkinson v. Shillinger
  866 F.2d 1185· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-23
  The dissenting judge would hold that the prosecutor's argument violated Caldwell v. Mississippi, diminishing the jury's sense of responsibility, and that a strict standard of review requires vacating the death sentence.
• United States v. Norbert E. Stelten
  867 F.2d 453· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-08
  Statements made by a third party on a tape recording are admissible if they are necessary to make the defendant's own admissions intelligible, even if the third party's statements themselves would otherwise be hearsay.
• Vidal v. Sullivan
  863 F.2d 2· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-06
  The admission of a witness's prior statement, even if inconsistent, does not violate the Confrontation Clause or deprive a defendant of a fair trial when used to clarify inconsistencies.
• United States v. Nelson
  852 F.2d 706· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-26
  The court held that the district court unreasonably limited cross-examination regarding the pendency of a grand jury investigation, requiring reversal of obstruction convictions. However, the conspiracy convictions were affirmed.
• United States ex rel. Levester Bell & Sherman Gibson v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  847 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-20
  The use of a deceased victim's preliminary hearing testimony at trial does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the testimony bears adequate "indicia of reliability," even if cross-examination was somewhat limited.
• United States v. Alton Campbell
  845 F.2d 782· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-29
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in replacing a juror, limiting cross-examination, or admitting testimony under the co-conspirator exception, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Jones v. Baer
  848 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-29 ·via Right To Confrontation
• Pool v. Dowdle
  834 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  Excluding expert testimony on police identification procedures was constitutionally permissible, but excluding evidence and cross-examination regarding a witness's reprimand violated the Confrontation Clause.
• O'Reilly v. State
  516 So. 2d 106· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-12-09 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Conviction reversed because trial court improperly excluded defense evidence of bias against the state's principal witness, violating the defendant's right to impeach credibility.