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. Fischer
  381 F.2d 509· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-24 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a third petition to vacate sentences, raising issues already adjudicated in a prior petition from which no appeal was taken, was subject to dismissal as frivolous and res judicata. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply at the s
• United States v. Garcia
  897 F.2d 1413· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-19 ·cited 57×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the stop was lawful, consent to search was valid, the scope of the search was justified by probable cause, Carlos had standing to challenge the search, and Jose's challenges regarding hearsay and jury instructions wer
• United States v. Williams
  892 F.2d 296· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-26 ·cited 57×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in prohibiting cross-examination of a witness regarding a prior conviction to show bias, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the exclusion of expert testimony on blackout was proper for a general intent crime.
• United States v. Doerr
  886 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-03 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the improper admission of certain coconspirator statements was harmless error, and the admission of grand jury testimony under the catch-all hearsay exception was proper. The court affirmed all convictions.
• The United States v. Beros
  833 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a sufficiently precise jury instruction on unanimity regarding the specific acts constituting the offenses, requiring vacation of convictions on those counts.
• Greene v. Louis Wainwright & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Fla.
  634 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 57×
  The court held that prohibiting cross-examination into a key witness's potential bias or mental instability violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Fredericks
  586 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 57×
  The court held that even if certain evidence was obtained in violation of a third party's rights, the defendants cannot use those violations to suppress evidence or testimony that does not directly infringe upon their own constitutional rights.
• United States v. Lindell
  881 F.2d 1313· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the joinder of defendants, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous claims.
• United States v. Magee
  821 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and importation of marijuana, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or denial of severance motions.
• United States v. McCOWN
  711 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.
• United States v. Lindstrom
  698 F.2d 1154· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court's restrictions on the defendants' ability to cross-examine the government's key witness regarding her psychiatric history and access to her medical records violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Crocker
  568 F.2d 1049· 3d Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, not charged in the indictment and not discussed in the grand jury testimony, amounted to a constructive amendment of the indictment, requiring a new trial.
• State v. Basiliere
  353 So. 2d 820· Fla.· 1977-10-20 ·cited 56×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered certified questions regarding whether deposition testimony of an unavailable witness (who died before trial) can be used as evidence in a criminal trial when the defendant was not present during the deposition. The court held that such use viola
• United States v. Gregorio
  497 F.2d 1253· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a defendant's absence from a conference on jury instructions is not reversible error if the conference involves purely legal matters and the defendant cannot contribute or understand. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to identify cocaine hyd
• United States v. Burnis Bryant
  461 F.2d 912· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment does not require the government to call a particular witness, and that a criminal defendant may be permitted to impeach their own witness. However, the court reversed Burnis Bryant's conviction due to a grossly inadequate jury instruction o
• United States v. Singleton
  460 F.2d 1148· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-12 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied a speedy trial, the use of a deposition was permissible, and the sentence was correctly imposed under the applicable statute.
• United States v. Thomas
  463 F.2d 1061· 7th Cir.· 1972-05-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding a newspaper article was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Adams
  446 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 56×
  The admission of hearsay testimony implicating the defendant, even though falling under a recognized hearsay exception, did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the declarant's statement was not crucial or devastating, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. de Georgia
  420 F.2d 889· 9th Cir.· 1969-12-11 ·cited 56×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court concurred with the majority opinion but emphasized the importance of the trustworthiness of business records, especially those generated by electronic data processing.
• McKISSICK v. United States
  379 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 56×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or in its handling of the prosecutor's closing argument, the case must be remanded to determine if the defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights regarding double jeopardy, co
• Golliher v. United States
  362 F.2d 594· 8th Cir.· 1966-06-30 ·cited 56×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the arrests, detentions, interrogations, seizure of clothing, witness viewings, joint trial, and admission of prior testimony were all lawful and did not violate the appellants' constitutional rights.
• Chandler v. Crosby
  916 So. 2d 728· Fla.· 2005-10-06 ·cited 55×
  Jim Eric Chandler, convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that Crawford v. Washington, which established new confrontation clause protections for testimonial hearsay, requires reversal of his convictio
• United States v. Thompson
  944 F.2d 1331· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed convictions for some appellants, but vacated and remanded sentences for others, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings on grand jury use, wiretaps, and evidence production.
• Ellis v. State OF Okla. & Warden Ray H. Page
  430 F.2d 1352· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-28 ·cited 55×
  The court held that a defendant's absence from an in camera discussion concerning a juror's qualifications, where the defendant's attorney was present, does not automatically warrant a new trial if the presumption of prejudice can be rebutted by showing the communication was harm
• United States v. Bond
  847 F.2d 1233· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for CCE status, upholding joint trials, and allowing admission of evidence and denial of recusal motions.
• United States v. Fortna
  796 F.2d 724· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions for Fortna, Sharer, and Reo, but remanded Harnage's appeal for a supplemental hearing regarding his attorney-client privilege claim.
• Reiger v. Christensen
  789 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court must review the state trial record to determine if ineffective assistance of counsel claims and the admission of witness testimony regarding a "long police record" violated due process. Other claims were affirmed.
• United States v. Bailey
  581 F.2d 341· 3d Cir.· 1978-07-11 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting an accomplice's out-of-court confession under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) because the statement lacked sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and its admission raised serious confrontation clause conc
• United States v. GAY
  567 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance based on a co-defendant's conditional offer to provide exculpatory testimony.
• United States v. Gernie
  252 F.2d 664· 2d Cir.· 1958-02-13 ·cited 54×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the entrapment defense was a question for the jury, the defense waived any claim regarding the government's failure to produce informant Max Berner, and the government had the right to call Benjamin Harel
• United States v. Sellers
  906 F.2d 597· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that the defendants' convictions and sentences were proper.
• United States v. Beltran-Rios
  878 F.2d 1208· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-06 ·cited 53×
  The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony to rebut the defense's suggestion of poverty was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury instruction on duress was not misleading.
• United States v. Baker
  855 F.2d 1353· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction, that evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, and that prosecutorial misconduct did not deny defendants a fair trial.
• United States v. Gonzales
  749 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance, refusing to make a pretrial determination of Miranda waiver, limiting cross-examination, or denying motions to suppress evidence.
• Flor Lopez v. Vanderwater
  620 F.2d 1229· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 53×·via Right To Confrontation
  A judge is not immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for non-judicial acts performed under color of state law that violate constitutional rights, even if the acts are otherwise judicial in nature. A non-judge may be liable for conspiracy if they knowingly participate in a
• United States v. Whitaker
  592 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-04 ·cited 53×
  The boarding, stop, and search of the vessel were constitutionally permissible due to probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Thompson
  493 F.2d 305· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-12 ·cited 53×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the proceedings were free from prejudicial error, affirming the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana.
• United States v. Galloway
  976 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) is authorized by statute and does not violate constitutional rights, allowing consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing.
• United States v. Williams
  858 F.2d 1218· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 52×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Williams of conspiracy to obstruct justice and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying severance motions. However, convictions for both conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy
• United States v. Alicia Davis (85-1153)
  809 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in conducting an in camera hearing regarding peremptory challenges, as defendants' presence was not constitutionally required and their counsel had ample opportunity to present arguments. The court also affirmed the district cour
• Mendoza v. Miller
  779 F.2d 1287· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 52×·via Right To Confrontation
  The majority holds that the petitioner was not denied due process because the record contained sufficient indicia of informant reliability, the petitioner waived his right to exculpatory material, and the magistrate properly handled in camera review.
• Bisaccia v. The Attorney Gen. of the State of N.J.
  623 F.2d 307· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that using a co-conspirator's guilty plea as evidence of a defendant's guilt violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United States v. Garner
  574 F.2d 1141· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 52×
• United States ex rel. Craig S. Owen v. Hon. Daniel J. McMANN
  435 F.2d 813· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that when jurors introduce specific, prejudicial extra-record facts about a defendant into deliberations, it violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even if the statements come from fellow jurors rather than court officials.
• United States v. Griffin
  434 F.2d 978· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-27 ·cited 52×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that conflicting testimony on entrapment is a jury question, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements and prior convictions was proper.
• United States v. Walton
  411 F.2d 283· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 52×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court, reconsidering its prior decision, should grant rehearing and reverse the conviction due to the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding entrapment conversations.
• United States v. Burnell Robinson
  406 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-10 ·cited 52×·via Right To Confrontation
  References to 'mug shots' during trial did not constitute reversible error because the trial court provided a comprehensive limiting instruction to the jury, and the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive.
• Moroni Lopez v. State
  888 So. 2d 693· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-11-17 ·cited 51×
  Moroni Lopez was convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon based partly on hearsay testimony from a witness (Hector Ruiz) identifying him as the person with the gun. The court held that while the statement qualified as an excited utterance under the hearsay exception
• United States v. Clarence Samuel Robinson (80-5479)
  707 F.2d 872· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing the jury to use government-prepared transcripts of inaudible tape recordings, as this was prejudicial and an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Blakey
  607 F.2d 779· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the Hobbs Act applies to mixed legal-illegal businesses and that the admission of recorded statements did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights or the rule against hearsay.