Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses

81 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Haren
  952 F.2d 190· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the appellants, finding sufficient evidence for convictions, no reversible error in jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and no abuse of discretion in sentencing enhancements.
• Wilson v. Harris
  595 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 10×
  A defendant who voluntarily and knowingly absents himself from his trial, through disruptive conduct or refusal to appear, waives his constitutional right to be present.
• Dillard Elean Henderson v. United States
  419 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of constitutional violations during his trial were without merit and did not warrant vacating his sentence.
• United States ex rel. Preston Smith v. Hon. Harold W. Follette
  405 F.2d 1199· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus petitions should be dismissed without prejudice to allow state courts an opportunity to adjudicate the confrontation clause claims first.
• United States v. Head
  755 F.2d 1486· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting witness testimony, limiting cross-examination, admitting co-conspirator statements, or finding sufficient evidence for the convictions.
• Overholt v. State
  110 So. 3d 530· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-04-03 ·cited 6×
  Overholt was convicted of battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child after the victim testified from behind a white screen rather than via closed-circuit television as permitted by statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's shielding method
• United States v. Helton
  975 F.2d 430· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in determining restitution amounts, considering depositions at sentencing, or refusing to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines.
• Carrasco v. State
  470 So. 2d 858· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-06-13 ·cited 6×
  Johnny Carrasco was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and robbery following a shooting and carjacking on Interstate 10. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because Officer Dennis's testimony regarding a non-testifying codefendant's confession viola
• Daniels v. State
  374 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-09-19 ·cited 6×
  Daniels appeals his conviction for possession and sale of phencyclidine, arguing the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by preventing cross-examination of the chief prosecution witness about his juvenile probation status. The court agrees and rev
• Lemire v. McCARTHY
  570 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the state trial court's rulings regarding his testimony and the admissibility of evidence concerning the prosecutrix's sexual history. The court also found no due process violation regarding suppresse
• United States v. Miranda
  510 F.2d 385· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-13 ·cited 6×
• Goldsmith v. S.R. Witkowski
  981 F.2d 697· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the petitioner's drug convictions, and the jury's consideration of stricken testimony did not violate his rights.
• Velarde v. United States
  972 F.2d 826· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, both trial and appellate, failed to meet the Strickland standard for performance and prejudice.
• Hutul v. United States
  582 F.2d 1155· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's double jeopardy claim was foreclosed by the dual sovereignty doctrine and that other claims were without merit, affirming the dismissal of his § 2255 petition.
• United States v. Sallins
  993 F.2d 344· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contents of a police radio dispatch and a 911 computer record, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, constituted inadmissible hearsay and their admission was not harmless error.
• McCray v. State
  418 So. 3d 260· Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-08-13 ·cited 1×
  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
• Lejune Neison Christie v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-06-30
  In a domestic violence offense case, the majority affirmed the conviction while Justice Warner dissented, arguing that multiple evidentiary errors—including admission of a 911 call as an excited utterance, hearsay testimony about other witnesses, and improper bolstering of the in
• Favian Rivera v. State
  274 So. 3d 537· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-06-21
  A trial court violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when it restricts cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regarding the specific details of a plea agreement, including the sentence the witness would have faced absent the deal, where such in
• Wright v. Dallman
  999 F.2d 174· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not require a trial court to allow cross-examination on speculative inferences of bias, especially when other evidence supports the conviction and the limitation does not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• United States v. Thomas
  987 F.2d 1298· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-09
  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. Summerfield
  961 F.2d 784· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-13
  The court affirmed the judgment, but one judge questioned the reasoning regarding the use of testimony.
• Blackmon v. State
  588 So. 2d 662· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-11-06
  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.
• Pool v. Dowdle
  834 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-15
  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.
• Rodwell v. Fair
  834 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-03
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment claims are barred by adequate and independent state grounds due to procedural default.
• Wernert v. ARN
  819 F.2d 613· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-09
  The dissenting judge believes the appellant adequately invoked her right to counsel, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion.
• Mares v. United States
  391 F.2d 538· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-19
  The court held that the appellant's contentions of error were frivolous and without merit, affirming the conviction.