Witness Bias

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

• United States v. Hogan
  232 F.2d 905· 3d Cir.· 1956-05-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by unduly restricting the cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses regarding potential leniency.
• Watson v. Cannon Shoe Co.
  165 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1948-01-06 ·cited 18×
  The trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint to conform to the evidence of ratification and in excluding evidence of ratification and witness bias.
• Plough v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. & 3 other cases
  164 F.2d 254· 2d Cir.· 1947-11-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that admitting evidence of workmen's compensation awards to plaintiffs was an abuse of discretion, as it was unduly prejudicial and the jury was already aware of the plaintiffs' direct interest in the outcome.
• Williamson v. State
  961 So. 2d 229· Fla.· 2007-05-10 ·cited 17×
  Johnny Williamson, sentenced to death for a 1985 prison murder, appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief based on alleged newly discovered evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that neither an affidavit by an executed inmat
• United States v. McNEILL
  887 F.2d 448· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction for solicitation and that the sentencing enhancements were properly applied.
• Kelly v. State
  425 So. 2d 81· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-12-17 ·cited 17×
  The defendant appeals his convictions for conspiracy to traffic in cannabis and trafficking in cannabis, claiming he was denied his constitutional right to fully cross-examine the prosecution's star witness, Paul Scott. The court agreed that Scott's invocation of his Fifth Amendm
• Arius J. Llanos v. State
  770 So. 2d 725· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-11-01 ·cited 16×
  Appellant Llanos appealed his conviction for kidnapping, burglary, and battery, challenging the trial court's admission of hearsay statements and use of judicial notice regarding his probation status to impeach credibility. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding th
• McKEE v. State
  712 So. 2d 837· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-07-08 ·cited 16×
  Robert McKee appealed his conviction for lewd and lascivious act on a child and contributing to the delinquency of a child, arguing that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence showing the alleged victims' bias and failed to re-read testimony when the jury requested clarifi
• United States v. Larranaga
  787 F.2d 489· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that materiality in perjury cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 is a question of law for the court, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction based on the submission of false minutes.
• Pender v. State
  432 So. 2d 800· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-06-15 ·cited 16×
  Pender was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court erred by refusing to allow defense counsel to make a proffer of excluded testimony during cross-examination of the state's witness, which violat
• Smith v. State
  404 So. 2d 167· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-09-29 ·cited 16×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by unduly restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's generalized racial bias when such questioning is probative of potential bias affecting credibility, and the court's failure to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties is r
• Klimas v. Mabry
  599 F.2d 842· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Arkansas Supreme Court's failure to afford Klimas a jury redetermination of his habitual criminal charge, after invalidating some prior convictions, violated due process. The denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not preclude federal habeas corpus
• United States v. Benavides
  549 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction must be reversed due to the trial court's ex parte communication with the jury and undue restriction of cross-examination regarding a witness's plea bargain.
• Greatreaks v. United States
  211 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1954-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a witness's prior hostility towards the defendant, as such evidence was relevant to the witness's potential bias and the exclusion substantially prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• Etavius Carlyle v. State
  945 So. 2d 540· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-11-29 ·cited 15×
  Etavius Carlyle appeals his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and four counts of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or force causing injury. The appellate court affirmed his convictions, rejecting his arguments that three sexual battery counts should have been dismi
• Guerry Jean Jacques v. State
  883 So. 2d 902· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-10-06 ·cited 15×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Guerry Jean Jacques's convictions for attempted first-degree murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle because the trial judge improperly commented on witness credibility during closing arguments, constituting fundamental error in a
• Chatman v. State
  687 So. 2d 860· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-01-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it was reversible error to prevent the defendant from cross-examining a state witness about alleged law enforcement inducements to implicate the defendant, as this testimony was not hearsay and was relevant to the witness's bias and motive.
• United States v. Ellzey
  936 F.2d 492· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that restricting cross-examination of a witness regarding pending state charges was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause, and that prosecutorial misconduct and the giving of an Allen instruction did not warrant a new trial.
• Henson v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  835 F.2d 850· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Tax Court clearly erred in finding tax fraud for 1974 by relying on the biased testimony of a key witness without sufficient corroboration. The court affirmed the Tax Court's finding of no fraud for 1975.
• D. C. v. State
  400 So. 2d 825· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination of state witnesses on issues of bias and credibility.
• United States v. Frankenthal
  582 F.2d 1102· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence of a defense witness's ex parte meeting with the judge, which tended to show bias and interest in the litigation's outcome, was admissible for impeachment purposes, and its probative value was not unfairly outweighed by prejudice.
• United States v. Moore
  554 F.2d 1086· D.C. Cir.· 1976-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that trial counsel's actions, though not following a precise checklist, were reasonable and based on sound judgment, and did not violate any duty to the client.
• United States v. Woods
  486 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while prosecutorial misconduct occurred, it did not result in prejudice requiring a new trial given the overall record and specific circumstances of the case.
• Ridgway Nat'l Bank v. N. Am. van Lines, Inc.
  326 F.2d 934· 3d Cir.· 1964-01-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions on unavoidable accident and the presumption of due care were proper, and that no final ruling was made on the admissibility of evidence regarding witness bias, thus no reversible error occurred.
• Harden v. State
  87 So. 3d 1243· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-05-23 ·cited 13×
  Appellant Harden was convicted of sexual battery, false imprisonment, and domestic battery against his former girlfriend. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior dome
• Fluellen v. State
  703 So. 2d 511· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-12-23 ·cited 13×
  Fluellen challenges his convictions for cocaine possession with intent to sell and drug paraphernalia possession. The court reversed, finding three significant trial errors: admission of hearsay testimony about an anonymous tip, improper expert testimony regarding drug quantity a
• Pomeranz v. State
  634 So. 2d 1145· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-04-13 ·cited 13×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by unreasonably restricting cross-examination of a codefendant witness regarding separate criminal charges that create a motive to adjust testimony, and by preventing inquiry into an eyewitness's potential motive to fabricate.
• Earnest Bell v. State
  614 So. 2d 562· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-02-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not requiring a witness to answer two specific cross-examination questions, as the answers would not have incriminated the witness and the refusal unduly restricted the defendant's right to cross-examination.
• United States v. Moore
  529 F.2d 355· D.C. Cir.· 1976-01-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, remanding for further proceedings.
• Blair v. United States
  401 F.2d 387· D.C. Cir.· 1968-05-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a defendant's pre-trial statements obtained without Miranda warnings cannot be used for impeachment purposes, even if the defense objection was not explicitly detailed. The court also affirmed one conviction while reversing another based on this evidentiary ru
• Wilson v. State
  574 So. 2d 1170· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-02-06 ·cited 12×
  Wilson appeals his convictions for armed burglary, aggravated assault, and armed robbery. The appellate court affirms all convictions, rejecting challenges to the trial court's handling of discovery violations, exclusion of witness bias evidence, and the constitutionality of the
• Lewis v. State
  570 So. 2d 412· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-11-21 ·cited 12×
  Cornelius Ray Lewis was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and five counts of sexual activity with a child under 18 while in a position of custodial authority. On appeal, Lewis challenged the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regardin
• Young v. Rabideau
  821 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony about prison rules and in admitting limited cross-examination regarding the plaintiff's prior disciplinary record.
• Allerd Sharlow v. Israel
  767 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusion of hearsay testimony did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense because the testimony was not critical or reliable.
• Harmon v. State
  394 So. 2d 121· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-05-09 ·cited 12×
  Linda Harmon appeals her conviction for robbery with a weapon. The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District reverses, finding that the prosecuting attorney's improper voir dire examination regarding an unrelated sexual assault incident, combined with erroneous restriction
• Chandler v. State
  366 So. 2d 64· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-12-19 ·cited 12×
  Miami Beach police officers Chandler and Granger were convicted of conspiracy, burglary, grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools based primarily on a tape-recorded radio conversation accidentally intercepted by a private citizen. They appealed on multiple grounds includin
• Howell v. Am. Live Stock Ins. Co.
  483 F.2d 1354· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding evidence of a witness's potential bias, and that Texas law, including statutory penalties and attorney fees, did not apply to the insurance contract.
• Austin v. United States
  418 F.2d 456· D.C. Cir.· 1969-03-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in barring the defendant's testimony that he implicated a police officer in a bribery scheme, as it would not have increased the officer's awareness of the accusation.
• McINTOSH v. United States
  176 F.2d 514· 8th Cir.· 1949-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's verdict on the appellant's mental condition was conclusive, and that the admission of evidence regarding his prior criminal record, confession, and father's testimony was not prejudicial error.
• Brown v. Mittelman
  152 So. 3d 602· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-08-27 ·cited 11×
  Dr. Neil Brown, a treating physician in a negligence action, petitioned for certiorari to quash a discovery order compelling him to produce documents about his financial relationships with the plaintiff's law firm. The court denied the petition, holding that a law firm's financia
• Lytal v. Malay
  133 So. 3d 1178· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-03-05 ·cited 11×
  A law firm's financial records showing payments to a treating physician who will testify as an expert are discoverable to establish potential bias, and the trial court's discovery order requiring redacted payment information was proper.
• Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Miles
  616 So. 2d 1108· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-04-09 ·cited 11×
  Winn-Dixie appealed a trial court's grant of a protective order and award of attorney's fees to Dr. Yandell, a treating physician, who opposed discovery requests seeking sensitive financial and practice information. The Fifth District affirmed, holding that the discovery requests
• Alton Roosevelt v. State
  42 So. 3d 293· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-08-04 ·cited 10×
  Alton Roosevelt appeals his adjudication as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the trial court's admission of impeachment evidence against the defense expert witness Dr. Natalie Brown. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding th
• Minus v. State
  901 So. 2d 344· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-05-04 ·cited 10×
  Leonard Minus appeals his convictions for kidnapping, sexual battery, and burglary of a conveyance, challenging numerous evidentiary rulings that prevented him from establishing a consent defense. The court reversed, finding that cumulative evidentiary errors preventing Minus fro
• Stanley v. State
  648 So. 2d 1268· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-02-01 ·cited 10×
  Howard Stanley was convicted of burglary with assault after an incident at his ex-girlfriend's home on Christmas 1992. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding that the trial court erred by excluding cross-examination about the victim and eyewitness's
• United States v. Harris
  956 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's warrantless arrest and the subsequent search of his car were lawful, and that the prosecutor's statements and the admission of the defendant's statement were not prejudicial error.
• Jones v. Berry
  880 F.2d 670· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that even if the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to make an offer of proof regarding the relevance of the excluded questions and his trial counsel's actions obscured the intended purpose of the in
• United States v. Klauer
  856 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting the cross-examination of a key witness regarding the specific details of his sentencing concessions, as the jury was already aware of the witness's motive and bias.
• United States v. James Stephen Meyer (85-5712)
  803 F.2d 246· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·cited 10×
  Drug trafficking offenses are not 'crimes of violence' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and therefore, convictions for carrying a firearm during such offenses must be vacated. However, convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting distribution are affirmed.
• United States v. Lawson
  683 F.2d 688· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government was precluded from using plea negotiation evidence for impeachment purposes and erred in limiting cross-examination regarding witness bias.