Witness Bias

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

• United States v. Greenwood
  796 F.2d 49· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of selective prosecution, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and improper submission of a count to the jury lacked merit.
• United States v. Mansaw
  714 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, admitting edited evidence, denying severance motions, refusing a lesser included offense instruction, or finding sufficient evidence for conviction.
• Hair v. State
  428 So. 2d 760· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-03-29 ·cited 28×
  Samuel Hair was convicted of sexual battery after a trial with co-defendant Jackson. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court improperly prevented Hair from presenting evidence of bias against the key prosecution witness and
• Ford v. United States
  233 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1956-04-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or procedural rulings.
• United States v. Lynn
  856 F.2d 430· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly circumscribing cross-examination regarding a witness's polygraph examination and by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction, thereby impairing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Hoppe
  645 F.2d 630· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of evidence showing a witness's bias toward an informant was proper, and the destruction of the informant's notes did not violate due process.
• RAY v. United States
  412 F.2d 1052· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's various claims of error, including issues with arrest warrants, suppression of evidence, jury instructions, and cross-examination limitations, did not warrant reversal of his conviction.
• McFarland v. United States
  174 F.2d 538· D.C. Cir.· 1949-04-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that conflicting jury instructions on the definition of residence for divorce jurisdiction and the refusal to allow cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias constitute reversible error.
• Purcell v. State
  735 So. 2d 579· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by refusing to permit defense counsel to impeach a key prosecution witness by showing bias.
• Tavoris A. Rozier v. State
  636 So. 2d 1386· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-05-25 ·cited 24×
  Tavoris Rozier appealed his conviction for armed trespassing and two counts of armed robbery. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on two grounds: the trial court erred by refusing to allow a proffer of excluded witness testimony, and the tria
• United States v. Candoli
  870 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the attempted arson conviction, but affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no reversible error in the other evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Lusk v. State
  531 So. 2d 1377· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-09-30 ·cited 24×
  Charles Lusk was convicted of burglary, aggravated battery, false imprisonment, and petit theft arising from a confrontation at the victim's mobile home. The appellate court reversed due to cumulative trial errors, including erroneous jury instructions on self-defense, improper e
• United States v. Truslow
  530 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of post-conspiracy statements that incriminate co-defendants in a joint trial, despite limiting instructions, violates the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause and requires severance or exclusion of the statements.
• Johnson v. Lou V. Brewer
  521 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the refusal to permit extrinsic evidence of a witness-informer's conduct did not violate any constitutional right of the defendant.
• Leathers v. United States
  250 F.2d 159· 9th Cir.· 1957-11-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove willful evasion of taxes and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or in refusing a mistrial.
• Meeks v. United States
  163 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1947-09-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court committed substantial error by refusing to admit evidence of a key witness's prior conviction for impeachment purposes and by engaging in misconduct that prejudiced the defendant before the jury.
• Tervin v. State
  37 Fla. 396· Fla.· 1896-01-01 ·cited 23×
  George Tervin was convicted of larceny of a cow and sentenced to one year in prison. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting Tervin's contentions that the jury discharge after their declaration of disagreement constituted improper jeopardy and that t
• Vazquez v. Milady Martinez
  175 So. 3d 372· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-09-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of payments made by the defense or its agents to expert witnesses is admissible to show potential bias, but an award for future medical expenses is improper without evidence of reasonable certainty.
• United States v. Armand W. Robinson, Sr.
  832 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting voir dire regarding potential jurors' knowledge of attorneys' publicity, this error was harmless and did not deny the defendant a fair trial. The court also affirmed limitations on cross-examination of informants, findin
• United States v. Crockett
  813 F.2d 1310· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that Thressa Crews was improperly prohibited from cross-examining her co-defendant, Henry Crockett, violating her Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights.
• Crockett Stevens v. Bordenkircher
  746 F.2d 342· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding a key witness's bias and the improper admission of a death certificate violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
• Brady v. Chem. Constr. Corp.
  740 F.2d 195· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the insurers' motion for a new trial, and that the appeal was frivolous, warranting sanctions.
• Cruz v. State
  437 So. 2d 692· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-04-14 ·cited 22×
  Cruz appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. The appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the trial court unduly restricted Cruz's right to cross-examine the state's key witness regarding drug u
• United States v. Harvey
  547 F.2d 720· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence of a key government witness's potential bias, as such evidence is not collateral and is admissible to impeach credibility.
• Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  519 F.2d 708· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding related litigation and in its jury instructions and interrogatories, thus affirming the judgment.
• THE Florida BAR v. Thomson
  271 So. 2d 758· Fla.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Bar sought disbarment of attorney Charles E. Thomson for multiple violations including issuing worthless checks, practicing while suspended, and other misconduct across two disciplinary cases. The Florida Supreme Court rejected disbarment but imposed a two-year suspen
• United States v. Eldon Wayne McKUIN
  434 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, the limitation on cross-examination was not prejudicial, and the witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege did not warrant a mistrial.
• Henry v. State
  688 So. 2d 963· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-02-25 ·cited 21×
  Ernest Henry was convicted of three counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, among other charges, arising from a shootout with Deputy Phillips during a car chase. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on all charges, holding that the ju
• Barows v. State
  805 So. 2d 120· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-01-23 ·cited 20×
  David Barows was convicted of robbery and appealed, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding a potential civil forfeiture action against the victim's property. The court held that the trial judge abused its discretion by preventing cross-examination on this i
• 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
• Colvin W. McDONALD v. Conlee Pickens, M.D., & Hodnette Med. Ctr. Clinic, P.A.
  544 So. 2d 261· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-05-17 ·cited 20×
  A medical malpractice case appealing a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial based on allegedly false testimony by defense expert witnesses regarding compensation. The trial court found that even if false testimony occurred, it was not material enough to warrant a new tr
• Jenkins v. Louie L. Wainwright
  763 F.2d 1390· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's limitations on cross-examination did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that the admission of testimony, despite alleged police misconduct during arrest, was within the trial court's discretion.
• Radtke v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  707 F.2d 999· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a witness's prior felony conviction for impeachment purposes, nor in admitting the judgment of conviction or evidence of an ancillary lawsuit to show bias.
• United States v. Booty
  621 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Vasilios
  598 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias, the error was not prejudicial. The court also affirmed the denial of a subsequent trial for Vasilios, finding that judicial administration concerns outweighed hi
• Meeks v. United States
  179 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1950-01-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the prosecutor's impeachment of a key government witness was permissible under an exception to the general rule, and the defendant was not prejudiced by the limitation of cross-examination on collateral matters.
• Hahn v. State
  626 So. 2d 1056· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-10 ·cited 19×
  Harvey Hahn appeals his conviction for attempted second-degree murder on three grounds: failure to conduct a Richardson hearing for discovery violations, improper character attack on a defense witness, and allowance of a last-minute amendment changing the charge from aggravated b
• Arias v. State
  593 So. 2d 260· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-14 ·cited 19×
  Jean Arias was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and solicitation to commit murder for allegedly plotting to kill an infant with severe birth defects by administering a lethal overdose of pain medication. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the attempted murder
• Hoover v. State OF Md.
  714 F.2d 301· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 19×
  The dissenting judge holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's bias, as sufficient evidence of bias was presented to the jury.
• Valentin Hernandez v. State
  360 So. 2d 39· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-06-13 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the complaining witness's alleged political bias.
• Lutherman v. State
  348 So. 2d 624· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-07-12 ·cited 19×
  Larry Mark Lutherman appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and resisting an officer without violence. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in preventing cross-examination of police witnesses about pending investiga
• Mosley v. State
  616 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-04-13 ·cited 18×
  Eddie James Mosley was convicted of resisting arrest with violence after interfering with police officers attempting to arrest his brother. On appeal, Mosley challenged the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding potential bias of the arresting officers, but the
• Conley v. State
  592 So. 2d 723· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-01-02 ·cited 18×
  William Thomas Conley appeals his convictions for armed burglary, armed robbery, and three counts of armed sexual battery, as well as his sentencing as a habitual violent felony offender. The appellate court affirmed all convictions but reversed the life sentences for the three s
• Thornes v. State
  485 So. 2d 1357· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-01 ·cited 18×
  Christopher Thornes was convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of his girlfriend. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial judge committed reversible error by excluding critical defense evidence: the prior inconsistent statemen
• Florencio Alvarez v. State
  467 So. 2d 455· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-04-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court committed harmful error by unduly restricting the defendant's cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses regarding potential bias and prior felony convictions.
• United States v. Touchstone
  726 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, admitting evidence of defendants' flight, or limiting cross-examination of a government witness.
• United States v. Maynard
  476 F.2d 1170· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-26 ·cited 18×
  The admission of a witness's arrest for obstruction of justice, without conviction, was prejudicial error that substantially outweighed its probative value, requiring reversal of Maynard's conviction. Gilbert's case is remanded for a hearing on the suppression of evidence and pot
• United States v. Haggett
  438 F.2d 396· 2d Cir.· 1971-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The appellate court held that the trial court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence offered to show a prosecution witness's bias and attempt to suborn perjury, which is relevant to the witness's credibility.
• United States v. Greenberg
  423 F.2d 1106· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regarding potential deals with the prosecution was an error that requires reversal.
• Mangan v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co.
  351 F.2d 24· 7th Cir.· 1965-07-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to admit plaintiff's requests for admissions and by allowing evidence of workmen's compensation benefits to be introduced, both of which were prejudicial to the plaintiff's case.