Sixth Amendment Right To Be Present

29 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Ferry v. State
  507 So. 2d 1373· Fla.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 103×
  John William Ferry, Jr. was convicted of five counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree arson for setting a fire in a Winn Dixie store that killed five people. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions but vacated his five death sentences because the tr
• United States v. Hoffa
  367 F.2d 698· 7th Cir.· 1966-10-04 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly impeaching a defendant with a subsequent conviction and by communicating with the jury in the absence of the defendants and their counsel.
• United States v. Pastor
  557 F.2d 930· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district judge erred in finding that the appellant voluntarily absented himself from trial, as his hospitalization for a severe anginal episode was medically justified and his constitutional right to be present was not knowingly waived.
• United States v. Bernardo Betancourt
  734 F.2d 750· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 53×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred by communicating with the jury without notifying counsel, this error was harmless and did not warrant overturning the convictions.
• United States v. Martinez
  604 F.2d 361· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-10 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a mistrial when a juror potentially witnessed a disturbance, continuing the trial in the defendant's voluntary absence, or admitting witness testimony that was invited by the defense.
• United States v. Vasquez
  732 F.2d 846· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that denying counsel's request to interrupt a bench conference to consult with the client, and excluding the defendant from that conference, did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• United States v. Wright
  932 F.2d 868· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-03 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the jury instructions adequately addressed the variance between the indictment and the evidence of multiple conspiracies, and that the joinder of defendants and offenses, as well as the denial of suppression motions,
• United States v. Kupau
  781 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court's procedural errors, including allowing an FBI agent to play tapes for the jury ex parte and providing the jury with a dictionary, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The exclusion of expert testimony was also not manifestly erroneous.
• United States v. Dischner
  974 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the RICO statute and Alaska's commercial bribe receiving statute were not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendants' conduct. The court also found no abuse of discretion in proceeding with an eleven-person jury and no i
• United States v. Bartley Burns and Lawrence Kelly
  683 F.2d 1056· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a judge's ex parte communication with the jury during deliberations, violating Rule 43(a), requires reversal of the affected conviction, but other convictions may stand if unaffected.
• United States v. Gagnon
  721 F.2d 672· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 14×
  The government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error of examining a juror without all defendants present did not contribute to the verdicts.
• United States v. Sinclair
  438 F.2d 50· 4th Cir.· 1971-02-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the defendant's presence was not required during an in-chambers conference on a point of law, and that his trial counsel provided effective assistance.
• Dziurgot v. Luther
  897 F.2d 1222· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 12×
  A district court cannot dismiss a claim of a drug-induced waiver of the right to be present at trial based solely on the judge's personal observation; an evidentiary hearing is required if the allegations are not conclusively contradicted by the record.
• United States v. McPHERSON
  421 F.2d 1127· D.C. Cir.· 1969-10-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary absence from trial does not waive their right to be present unless they are adequately informed that the trial will continue without them.
• United States ex rel. William Allen v. State OF Ill.
  413 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court did not err in its conduct and the district court properly dismissed the habeas petition.
• Sims v. State
  135 So. 3d 1098· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-08-21 ·cited 6×
  James Sims was convicted of manslaughter in the 2011 shooting death of Roy Radabaugh that occurred in 1981. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial because Sims was unconstitutionally excluded from an in-chambers conference where
• United States v. Hemsi
  901 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's courtroom behavior, when resulting from a mental disease or defect, can be considered as a factor in determining competency to stand trial, and that the district court's finding of incompetence was adequately supported by the evidence.
• Windh v. State
  113 So. 3d 150· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-05-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that proceeding with a restitution hearing in the defendant's absence, without a showing of waiver, is reversible error.
• Mason Ryan Pierce v. State
  133 So. 3d 1186· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-03-07 ·cited 4×
  Mason Pierce appeals a restitution order entered after a hearing conducted in his absence without proof that he waived his right to be present. The court reverses, holding that a restitution hearing is a critical stage of criminal proceedings where the defendant has a Sixth Amend
• United States v. Mera
  921 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 4×
  A defendant's intentional absence from criminal proceedings, when aware of the proceedings, can constitute a voluntary waiver of the right to be present, even without actual knowledge of the trial date.
• United States v. Brunk
  587 F.2d 910· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a judge's ex parte communication with the jury, even if concerning a discretionary matter like replaying evidence, creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must overcome.
• Lowery v. Cardwell
  535 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's absence from chambers during her attorney's motion to withdraw and an off-the-record conference may have violated her due process and Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Meyer
  404 F.2d 254· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying severance and proceeding with trial after defendant's voluntary absence.
• Smith v. State
  295 So. 3d 353· Fla. 5th DCA· 2020-04-23 ·cited 1×
  James C. Smith appeals his robbery with firearm conviction and life sentence, raising two issues: violation of his Sixth Amendment right to be present at a competency hearing and improper denial of a mistrial motion. The appellate court found the trial court violated Smith's cons
• S.I. v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-07-06
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for driving without a valid license, holding that the trial court erred by admitting the defendant's confession without sufficient independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti (body of the crime). The court affirmed the conviction
• Jamylin Jamon'e Brown v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-03-09
  A criminal defendant's remote appearance at sentencing via video during the COVID-19 pandemic does not constitute fundamental error when the defendant did not object at trial, had a meaningful opportunity to be heard through counsel, presented all evidence and argument sought, an
• Nabor Mendoza v. State
  93 So. 3d 441· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-07-16
  Nabor Mendoza appeals his convictions for kidnapping and two counts of sexual battery, arguing the prosecutor violated his constitutional right to be present at trial by implying during cross-examination that he tailored his testimony after hearing other witnesses. The Florida ap