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. Polisi
  416 F.2d 573· 2d Cir.· 1969-09-25 ·cited 51×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the denial of a new trial was error as to Anthony Polisi due to the government's suppression of evidence, but affirmed the denial as to Salvatore Polisi.
• Holland v. State
  773 So. 2d 1065· Fla.· 2000-10-05 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  Albert Holland was convicted of murdering Pompano Beach police officer Scott Winters during an armed robbery and attempted sexual battery. On direct appeal of his death sentence, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death penalty, rejecting twenty-two claims of
• Harris v. Vasquez
  913 F.2d 606· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of Robert Alton Harris's third federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no error in the denial without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Fortier
  911 F.2d 100· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 50×
  Consideration of disputed cocaine amount at sentencing violated the Confrontation Clause due to unreliable hearsay evidence.
• United States v. Alvarez
  860 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 50×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient for a jury to conclude that the defendant organized or managed certain individuals under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute.
• United States v. White
  794 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the district court's rulings on severance, evidentiary matters, jury instructions, or prosecutorial remarks.
• United States v. Seifert
  648 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the denial of Seifert's severance motion was prejudicial error, requiring reversal, but affirmed Ehrlich's conviction.
• Chipman v. Mercer
  628 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-04 ·cited 50×
  The denial of cross-examination to explore a witness's potential bias against a group to which the defendant belonged violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. DiGREGORIO
  605 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1979-08-14 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidence was properly admitted, the Hobbs Act jurisdiction was established, and the trial was not prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct or the handling of multiple conspiracies.
• Stone v. Morris
  546 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-10 ·cited 50×
  A district court has the discretion to compel an incarcerated party's presence at trial via writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, and a prison memorandum may be admissible under the business records exception if a proper foundation is laid.
• United States v. Herndon
  536 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-06 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the subpoena of bank records, and the destruction of a mash sample did not deprive him of a fair trial under the Due Process Clause.
• United States v. D'Amato
  493 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in evidentiary rulings or juror issues.
• United States v. Carson
  464 F.2d 424· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the jury charge on conspiracy to commit bribery was not misleading, and the appellant's conduct constituted an official act within the meaning of the bribery statute. The court also rejected the appellant's claims regarding duplicity in the conspiracy count an
• United States ex rel. Cleveland Reed v. Anderson
  461 F.2d 739· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-11 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a pre-trial photographic display, even without counsel, does not automatically violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• United States v. Jackson
  448 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendants' due process rights were not violated by an inadvertent pretrial confrontation with witnesses, nor by a lawful investigatory stop and seizure of evidence, and affirmed the convictions.
• Tarlton v. Clark
  441 F.2d 384· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-05 ·cited 50×·via Right To Confrontation
• United States v. Lipowitz
  407 F.2d 597· 3d Cir.· 1969-02-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the admission of bait bills seized from an automobile, the identification procedures used, and the denial of a severance motion were not errors that violated the defendant's constitutional rights.
• Stanley v. United States
  245 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1957-05-22 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and violating the Federal Train Wreck Act, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• G. E. G. v. State
  417 So. 2d 975· Fla.· 1982-07-15 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that in controlled substance possession cases, the substance must be introduced into evidence if available, but a defendant who fails to object to its non-introduction waives the right to challenge the error on appeal. The Court rejected both absolu
• United States v. Hall
  653 F.2d 1002· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-20 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the admission of DEA agent testimony regarding general investigative procedures was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, warranting reversal of the convictions.
• Jones v. State
  360 So. 2d 1293· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-07-18 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  Victor Jones was convicted of manslaughter after being charged with first-degree murder for distributing heroin that caused the death of Kristi Lynn Stidham. On appeal, Jones challenged the admission of toxicological evidence despite unavailable original materials, the admission
• Polizzi v. United States
  550 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that defendants' claims regarding in camera juror interrogations and indictment validity were either previously decided, procedurally barred, or lacked merit. The court affirmed the denial of their motions to vacate sentences.
• Loren (Red) Brooks v. United States
  416 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-22 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the evidence against Brooks was insufficient for a conspiracy conviction, but the evidence supporting the convictions of Nipp and Moore for bank burglary and conspiracy was sufficient. The search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause.
• State v. Hollingsworth
  103 Fla. 801· Fla.· 1931-12-09 ·cited 49×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court considered whether a writ of mandamus was appropriate to restore a doctor's license revoked by the State Board of Medical Examiners. The Court found that the Board failed to follow statutory procedures, denying the doctor fundamental rights, and thus gra
• Walton v. State
  847 So. 2d 438· Fla.· 2003-05-29 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jason Dirk Walton appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 challenging his conviction for three counts of first-degree murder and three death sentences. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, fi
• Morgan v. State
  639 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1994-06-02 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  James Morgan appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for life imprisonment, finding that the trial judge erroneously rejected mitigating factors including Morg
• United States v. Shoffner
  826 F.2d 619· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-11 ·cited 48×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the informant's conduct, while potentially unsavory, did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to violate due process, and statements made by a defendant to the informant were properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  808 F.2d 886· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict the appellant of aiding and abetting the importation of controlled substances on January 14, 1985, as the circumstantial evidence did not establish his intent to make the venture succeed.
• Marr v. State
  494 So. 2d 1139· Fla.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts should not give jury instructions singling out sexual battery victims' testimony for heightened scrutiny. The court rejected the historical "Lord Hale" instruction and held that standard jury instructions adequately guide juries in
• State v. Carr
  438 So. 2d 826· Fla.· 1983-09-29 ·cited 48×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that an appeal following a nolo contendere plea is fatal if a legally dispositive issue was not expressly reserved, but also noted that the trial court erred in denying a motion to compel discovery of a victim's address without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Marino
  658 F.2d 1120· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 48×
  The court held that firearms found with a defendant charged with a large-scale drug conspiracy were admissible as relevant evidence of intent and that the indictment charging a single conspiracy was proper. The court also affirmed the admissibility of documents and rejected claim
• United States v. Harrison Odell Leach
  613 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Garrett
  542 F.2d 23· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by unduly restricting the defendant's cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regarding the witness's potential bias and credibility.
• United States v. Marti
  421 F.2d 1263· 2d Cir.· 1970-02-03 ·cited 48×
  Convictions must be reversed because evidence was seized pursuant to unconstitutionally general search warrants, violating the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.
• United States v. Holmes
  387 F.2d 781· 7th Cir.· 1967-11-20 ·cited 48×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant's Selective Service file, including a notation from the hospital indicating he did not report, was admissible as evidence. The court also found the evidence sufficient to prove the defendant failed to report for civilian duty.
• United States v. Giry
  818 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and that the government's good-faith efforts to locate a confidential informant, who was deemed a conduit rather than a principal, did not deprive the d
• United States v. Loalza-Vasquez
  735 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court did not err in asserting jurisdiction, admitting hearsay evidence under the residual exception, denying severance, or finding no unconsented conflict of interest.
• Jackson v. State
  419 So. 2d 394· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-09-15 ·cited 47×
  George Jackson was convicted of indecent assault on a three-year-old child and sentenced to nine years in prison. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded to vacate cost assessments imposed against an indigent defendant.
• United States v. Garcia
  531 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of government witnesses regarding a confidential informant's past activities, nor in refusing requested jury charges on knowledge and specific intent.
• United States v. Newman
  490 F.2d 139· 3d Cir.· 1974-01-08 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that aiding and abetting requires wilful participation, and by failing to strike testimony when a witness asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege on matters central to the defense. The court also found pr
• Bustamante v. Eyman
  456 F.2d 269· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 47×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the replay of electronically recorded instructions in the defendant's absence was not an error of constitutional dimension and, even if it were, it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Heriberto Diaz
  876 F.2d 1344· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of a government informant, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Lanza
  790 F.2d 1015· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, witness testimony was not unduly prejudicial, severance was not warranted, evidentiary rulings limiting cross-examination were within the trial court's discretion, and jury instructions on conscious avoidance were ap
• United States v. Garrett
  716 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 46×
• United States v. Oliver
  626 F.2d 254· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-14 ·cited 46×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement against a defendant, without the declarant being subject to cross-examination, violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation if the statement is crucial and devastating. A defendant's competency to stand trial is asse
• United States v. Glover
  596 F.2d 857· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-09 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that governmental interference with the attorney-client relationship, absent resulting prejudice or incriminating statements, does not require dismissal of an indictment. It also held that a defendant with low intelligence can knowingly and intelligently waive Mira
• United States v. Heck
  499 F.2d 778· 9th Cir.· 1974-01-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any defendant forcibly attempted to rescue seized property, reversing convictions on those counts. However, the court found sufficient evidence for conspiracy to assault and for substantiv
• United States v. Nasser
  476 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a client's knowing participation in a corrupt bargain with their lawyer can constitute a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
• United States v. Rosenstein
  474 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 46×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of certain Liechtenstein documents was not reversible error, as they were admissible either as admissions by the defendants or as declarations of co-conspirators, despite not meeting the business records exception.
• United States v. Pacelli
  470 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-30 ·cited 46×·via Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statement, though error without limiting instructions, was harmless error, and the seizure of boric acid was permissible under the plain-view doctrine.