Witness Bias

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

• United States v. Crouthers
  669 F.2d 635· 10th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that the victim's life was in jeopardy and that a dangerous weapon was used in the robbery, and that any errors in jury instructions or discovery violations were harmless.
• Niziolek v. Ashe
  694 F.2d 282· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Rose v. Lundy 'total exhaustion' rule does not require a federal appellate court to decline review of a district court decision on the merits of exhausted claims in a mixed petition when the district court opinion issued before Rose or so close in time as
• Moreno v. State
  418 So. 2d 1223· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-09-07 ·cited 44×
  Antonio Moreno was convicted of culpable negligence after a fight resulting from a traffic altercation. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding three reversible errors: exclusion of similar-fact evidence showing the state's witnesses committed a nearly
• United States v. Ruiz
  579 F.2d 670· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of police officers' prior suspensions for excessive force, excluding uniformed officers from the courtroom, and admitting the defendant's arrest report and grand jury testimony.
• Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. James E. Pope, M.D., Heartcare Inst. of Tampa, P.A.
  798 So. 2d 1· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-07-25 ·cited 43×
  A law firm sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of billing invoices from medical expert witnesses. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the discovery order does not create irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review and, on the merits,
• United States v. LAY
  644 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in excluding testimony regarding a key witness's prior inconsistent statements and motives, this error was harmless. The court also found the prosecutor's improper question about an unconvicted offense to be harmless error.
• United States v. Love
  599 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Barrentine
  591 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance for retained counsel and that the admission of certain evidence was proper.
• United States v. Anderson
  881 F.2d 1128· D.C. Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 40×
• Ulysses LEE v. State
  422 So. 2d 928· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-02 ·cited 40×
  Lee was convicted of burglary and petit theft after being apprehended at a scrap metal yard. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the prosecutor improperly commented on Lee's post-arrest silence during closing arguments, violating Florida's more expa
• Rondy Jones v. State
  678 So. 2d 890· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-08-21 ·cited 39×
  The trial court erred by excluding evidence of witness bias, which was not harmless error, requiring reversal of the burglary and petit theft convictions.
• United States v. Domina
  784 F.2d 1361· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 39×
  The court should have applied the Supreme Court's test for identification reliability to in-court suggestive identification procedures, which would have led to the conclusion that the appellant was denied a fair trial.
• United States v. Houghton
  554 F.2d 1219· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to hold a Rule 11 hearing for a codefendant, denying dismissal of the indictment despite a delay in informant disclosure, limiting cross-examination regarding contempt proceedings, denying a jury-waived trial, or in i
• United States v. Aurora Canales and Elia Garcia
  744 F.2d 413· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the government failed to prove that the defendants paid or offered to pay for votes, and the dissent would reverse the conviction.
• John McSHAIN, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Wings, Inc.
  563 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1977-10-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting a pre-trial release of a third party to impeach a witness, nor in refusing to admit National Transportation Safety Board reports, and affirmed the judgment.
• United States v. Lester
  248 F.2d 329· 2d Cir.· 1957-09-30 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding price regulations was an abuse of discretion, as it was relevant to showing the witness's motive to falsify testimony. The court also found that the cross-examination of the key witness was unduly restricted.
• Worley v. Cent. Fla. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, Inc.
  228 So. 3d 18· Fla.· 2017-04-13 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege protects a plaintiff from disclosing whether her attorney referred her to a treating physician for medical treatment. The Court rejected the Fifth District's extension of Boecher discovery principles to plaintiff-t
• United States v. Walker Bennett Monroe
  943 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government did not impermissibly vouch for a witness, that wire transfers constitute 'transportation' under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2), and that sentencing disparities were permissible.
• Barnard v. United States
  342 F.2d 309· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Deegans' testimony, despite being obtained through questionable government tactics, was admissible and sufficient to support Weinstein's conviction on Count VI.
• United States v. Plotke
  725 F.2d 1303· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 35×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain convictions for substantive mail fraud counts and that procedural errors did not warrant reversal.
• Ulysses Holt v. State
  378 So. 2d 106· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-01-02 ·cited 35×
  Ulysses Holt was convicted of armed robbery based largely on testimony from the sole direct witness, Gwendolyn Tisdale, who had been granted immunity. The court reversed his conviction because the trial judge improperly restricted cross-examination of Tisdale regarding the detail
• Wyon Dale Childers v. State
  936 So. 2d 585· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-02-02 ·cited 34×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for his role in purchasing the Pensacola Soccer Complex while serving as an Escambia County Commissioner. On appeal, the court affirmed the exclusion of evidence challenging his co-conspirator's plea agreement
• Murray v. State
  838 So. 2d 1073· Fla.· 2002-10-03 ·cited 34×
  Gerald Murray was convicted of the 1990 first-degree murder of Alice Vest and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions and vacated his sentence, finding that the trial court improperly admitted DNA evidence that failed to meet Frye standards for reli
• United States v. Calle
  822 F.2d 1016· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the limitation on cross-examination of the government's witness was proper, the exclusion of the defense witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion and substantially prejudicial.
• United States v. Greschner
  802 F.2d 373· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to admonish witnesses not to discuss their testimony and in allowing Government counsel at ex parte hearings, these errors were harmless or waived. The court also found no error in denying requests for an expert witness,
• United States v. Lamp
  779 F.2d 1088· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and that the sentences were not disproportionate.
• McDUFFIE v. State
  341 So. 2d 840· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-01-26 ·cited 34×
  Roy McDuffie was convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny based primarily on the testimony of William Guthrie. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction because the trial court improperly restricted McDuffie's cross-examination of Guthrie regarding potential
• Dr. Alexander v. Spaeth
  232 F.2d 776· 6th Cir.· 1956-05-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that limiting the cross-examination of a key witness regarding potential motives for his testimony was reversible error.
• Tomengo v. State
  864 So. 2d 525· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-01-09 ·cited 33×
  Carl Tomengo appealed his sexual battery conviction, challenging the trial court's exclusion of a defense witness and limitation of cross-examination about the victim's motive. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate
• United States v. Silvestri
  790 F.2d 186· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed jury convictions on various narcotics charges, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, Fifth Amendment claims, jury instructions, cross-examination limitations, and admission of coconspirator statements.
• United States v. Lavelle
  751 F.2d 1266· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of EPA attorneys, limiting direct examination of the appellant, or admitting evidence of other bad acts.
• United States v. Fitzgerald
  579 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury had sufficient basis to find a single overarching conspiracy and that overt acts within the statute of limitations period were in furtherance of the conspiracy's objectives. It also found that Leahu was a bribeable official under Indiana law and that
• LEE v. State
  318 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-07-31 ·cited 32×
  A defendant convicted of heroin possession and sale appealed the trial court's exclusion of testimony about a pending robbery charge against the State's paid informant witness. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the defendant had a constitutional right to cross-examin
• Love v. State
  971 So. 2d 280· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-01-09 ·cited 31×
  Robert Love appeals five convictions arising from a traffic stop in Pahokee, claiming the police used the stop as retaliation for his public criticism of their department. The appellate court reversed due to fundamental error in jury instructions and prejudicial evidentiary rulin
• United States v. Salerno
  937 F.2d 797· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 31×
  The erroneous exclusion of grand jury testimony tainted the entire trial, requiring reversal of all convictions and a new trial for all appealing defendants.
• United States v. Moore
  786 F.2d 1308· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification when other evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and that the continued retention of lawfully seized handguns for use as evidence did not violate the Fourth A
• United States v. Sutton
  732 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice were supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial court rulings did not constitute an abuse of discretion or reversible error.
• United States v. Gambler
  662 F.2d 834· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination regarding the witness's prior civil suits, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not warrant reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. Perez
  651 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in limiting defense counsel's questioning regarding political motivations for the investigation and that the failure to swear the interpreter was waived.
• Cowheard v. State
  365 So. 2d 191· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-12-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by restricting the cross-examination of a key witness regarding pending criminal charges.
• Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Constr., Inc.
  3 So. 3d 1078· Fla.· 2009-01-30 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida Statutes §768.041(3) and §90.408 unambiguously prohibit admission of evidence of settlement and dismissal of defendants to the jury under all circumstances, including to impeach witness credibility, and that violation constitutes revers
• United States v. Barrett
  766 F.2d 609· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were not erroneously refused.
• Wooten v. State
  464 So. 2d 640· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-05 ·cited 30×
  Wooten, a black carpenter charged with attempted second-degree murder, was convicted of simple battery after a jury credibility contest with the white victim. The appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly prohibited cross-examination of the victim regarding his
• S. Colo. Prestress Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  586 F.2d 1342· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the amendment of the citation to include a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105(a) and (b) related back to the original filing date and that the company committed a serious violation of the standard by failing to use safety nets when other fall protection was imp
• United States v. Alvarez-Lopez
  559 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court committed prejudicial error of constitutional dimension by refusing to permit the defendant to inquire into the government's star witness' prior arrest for smuggling narcotics, thereby curtailing cross-examination.
• Thurman v. United States
  316 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1963-04-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it was error to allow cross-examination questions suggesting criminal conduct not resulting in conviction, and that such error was not harmless.
• Springer v. West
  769 So. 2d 1068· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-09-08 ·cited 29×
  A defendant may be compelled to answer interrogatories regarding the relationship between his expert witness and his liability insurer, where the insurer is defending as the insured's agent, because such information is discoverable and relevant to the expert's bias.
• Powe v. State
  413 So. 2d 1272· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-05-14 ·cited 29×
  Leon Elmore Powe was convicted of trafficking in methaqualone, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding potential bias and motivation for testifying, particularly regar
• Chavis v. State OF N.C.
  637 F.2d 213· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's amended statement and psychiatric report violated the petitioners' due process rights.
• City OF Orlando v. Pineiro
  66 So. 3d 1064· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-08-05 ·cited 28×
  The City of Orlando appeals a wrongful death verdict finding it 55% responsible for a young man's death caused by a police pursuit. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial based primarily on improper closing arguments by plaintiff's counsel, including inflammato