Witness Bias

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

• Rolle v. State
  386 So. 2d 3· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-07-22 ·cited 10×
  Ronald Rolle appeals his grand larceny conviction, challenging the trial judge's refusal to allow cross-examination of a prosecution witness about an ongoing perjury investigation. The court affirms, holding that while defendants may generally cross-examine prosecution witnesses
• Lombardi v. State
  358 So. 2d 220· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a prior civil suit filed by the appellant against the Sheriff's Department, as it was relevant to showing potential bias of prosecution witnesses.
• United States v. DiNAPOLI
  557 F.2d 962· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding extrinsic evidence of a witness's bias without a proper foundation and in admitting a prior conviction for impeachment purposes.
• Coulson v. Florine E. Trumbull
  328 So. 2d 271· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-02-27 ·cited 10×
  This case involves a business owner suing another party for libel and intentional interference with business relationships based on allegedly false statements made to a major corporation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's directed verdicts, finding that the jury shou
• United States v. Jordan
  466 F.2d 99· 4th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for a continuance to investigate witnesses and for disclosure of government witnesses' names, nor in denying a motion to suppress the victim's identification.
• Graves v. State
  937 So. 2d 1286· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-10-04 ·cited 9×
  Jeffrey Graves appeals his aggravated battery conviction, arguing the trial court erred in instructing the jury on self-defense and in preventing cross-examination of the alleged victim regarding a pending civil suit. The appellate court agrees on both grounds and reverses, findi
• Evans v. Lewis
  855 F.2d 631· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the death sentence is reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase.
• Brown v. Dugger
  831 F.2d 1547· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination into a witness's potential deal with the state violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Williams
  446 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a defendant can be convicted of multiple assaults under 18 U.S.C. § 111 if they commit separate acts against different officers, and that cross-examination to show witness bias is permissible.
• Rolle v. State
  215 So. 3d 75· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-10-13 ·cited 8×
  Andrew Rolle appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and attempted second degree murder, arguing the trial court abused its discretion regarding detective testimony, evidentiary rulings, and cross-examination limitations. The Florida Third
• Musson v. State
  184 So. 3d 575· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-01-22 ·cited 8×
  Vanessa Musson was convicted of multiple crimes including kidnapping, but the appellate court reversed her kidnapping conviction due to the trial court's improper exclusion of a defense witness's testimony that would have impeached the credibility of the State's key witness by sh
• Smith v. State
  98 So. 3d 632· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-09-05 ·cited 8×
  Smith, an adoptive mother, was convicted of sexual battery on a child and lewd or lascivious molestation. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed her convictions, holding that the trial court erred by excluding testimony from an assistant state attorney regarding the
• Neilson Smith v. State
  38 So. 3d 871· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-06-23 ·cited 8×
  A defendant convicted of first-degree felony murder and armed robbery challenged the trial court's restriction on cross-examination of a cooperating accomplice witness. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining an object
• Wyon Dale Childers v. State
  936 So. 2d 619· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-06-28 ·cited 8×
  Childers sought certification to challenge the procedural regularity of the Florida First District Court of Appeal's decision to convert a three-judge panel decision (which would have reversed his conviction) into an en banc decision (which affirmed his conviction). The court den
• Nelson v. State
  704 So. 2d 752· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding cross-examination regarding pending civil actions filed by the defendant against the victim, as the probative value was outweighed by the danger of confusion or misleading the jury.
• Brown v. Powell
  975 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate the Confrontation Clause by limiting cross-examination regarding the potential penalty the accomplice witness avoided, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness bias.
• United States v. Clement A. Abadie, Jr.
  879 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient probable cause for arrest and search, admissible evidence, and adequate proof for conspiracy, possession, and Travel Act violations.
• Clark v. O'Leary
  852 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to permit cross-examination regarding the alleged bias and motive of witnesses stemming from their gang affiliation violated the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
• D.J.G. v. State
  524 So. 2d 1024· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-12-09 ·cited 8×
  A juvenile was convicted of conspiracy to commit battery based on circumstantial evidence, but the appellate court reversed because the state's own witness testified that the defendant agreed not to use physical contact, which the state never challenged as adverse testimony, ther
• United States v. Garrett
  797 F.2d 656· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an indictment returned by a grand jury that previously heard a defendant's immunized testimony on related matters requires an evidentiary hearing to determine if the indictment was based on evidence derived from legitimate independent sources, rather than the
• Carrillo v. Perkins
  723 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 8×
  A restriction on cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding potential bias, even if it violates the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, can be harmless error if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
• United States v. Willis
  647 F.2d 54· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's refusal to permit cross-examination of a government witness regarding his bias violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, requiring reversal of both convictions.
• Johnson v. State
  338 So. 2d 252· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-10-13 ·cited 8×
  Gary Johnson appeals his convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and larceny of a firearm, challenging the trial court's exclusion of testimony regarding bias of a key witness and the imposition of a single sentence for two separate counts.
• United States v. Fontana
  231 F.2d 807· 3d Cir.· 1956-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regarding a key witness's prior inconsistent statements deprived the defendants of a fair trial.
• Fajardo v. State
  193 So. 3d 1019· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-06-08 ·cited 7×
  Pedro Fajardo appeals his conviction for attempted second degree murder. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination of the key state witness about his immigr
• Ware v. State
  124 So. 3d 388· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-10-23 ·cited 7×
  William Ware was convicted of exposing his genitals lewdly in the presence of a disabled person at a bus stop. On appeal, Ware challenged the trial court's exclusion of evidence that the victim had previously been subjected to sexual battery, arguing such evidence was relevant to
• Peterson v. State
  24 So. 3d 686· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-12-18 ·cited 7×
  The trial court erred by excluding evidence of a key witness's bias and motive, and by refusing a special jury instruction relevant to the defendant's theory of defense.
• Pack v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  119 So. 3d 1284· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-09-04 ·cited 6×
  Vicky Pack sued GEICO for injuries from a car collision with an uninsured motorist. The jury returned a zero-damage verdict despite undisputed evidence of a neck sprain and medical expenses. The Fourth District reversed, holding Pack was entitled to recover reasonable diagnostic
• Martino v. State
  964 So. 2d 906· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-10-03 ·cited 6×
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a key state witness to exclude inquiry into a prior plea agreement from nine years earlier when there is no showing of sufficient similarity between the prior and current cases to establish a pattern or
• O'Neil v. Gilbert
  625 So. 2d 982· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-10-26 ·cited 6×
  In a personal injury case arising from serious burns, the jury found the defendant gas company and landlords liable based on the plaintiff's testimony about a defective stove, contrary to the defense witness's account of a voodoo ritual accident. The appellate court reversed and
• Wiley Frederick Nelson, Jr. v. State
  602 So. 2d 550· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-01-24 ·cited 6×
  Wiley Nelson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in a contract killing case. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial judge improperly restricted Nelson's cross-examination of the state's key witne
• Corley v. State
  586 So. 2d 432· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-09-12 ·cited 6×
  Darryl Wayne Corley appeals his conviction for resisting an officer with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding the trial court erred in limiting defense cross-examination of the arresting officer regarding poten
• United States v. Thorn
  917 F.2d 170· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and equity skimming, and that the exclusion of evidence of a witness's unrelated state indictment was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Amerson-Bey
  898 F.2d 681· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in sustaining an objection during cross-examination and that the sentence enhancement did not violate due process as the constitutional objection was not raised below.
• United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Olympia Wings, Inc.
  896 F.2d 949· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-21 ·cited 6×
  An insurer that tenders a defense under a reservation of rights is not bound by an unreasonable consent judgment entered into by its insured, but an insurer that flatly refuses to defend is bound by such a judgment. Evidence of settlement may be admissible to show witness bias.
• United States v. Phillips
  888 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding extrinsic evidence of the government witnesses' prior drug use at a party unrelated to the charged offense, as it was not sufficiently probative of bias or relevant to the case.
• United States v. Bratton
  875 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting wire fraud and possession of stolen property, and that the admission of impeachment evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Thompson
  807 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, the admission of a homemade knife was proper, the restriction of cross-examination was justified, and the voir dire was adequate.
• United States v. Dorta
  783 F.2d 1179· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 6×
  A defendant cannot simultaneously deny committing the crime and assert the entrapment defense, and the trial court did not err in refusing to allow cross-examination about a witness's maximum potential sentence when that information was already ascertainable.
• United States v. Ambrose John Fusco
  748 F.2d 996· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that testimony about an informant's past cooperation with the DEA was admissible to show the informant was not biased, rather than to bolster their general truthfulness.
• Rosetta McKINZY v. Louie L. Wainwright
  719 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation requires allowing cross-examination of a juvenile witness regarding their record if it could show bias, overriding state laws protecting juvenile record confidentiality.
• United States v. Sherill P. Landes
  704 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to impeach government witnesses for bias, as the proffered evidence lacked logical support or was outweighed by prejudice.
• United States v. Montgomery
  440 F.2d 694· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that any error in restricting cross-examination was not reversible. The jury instructions regarding the overt act requirement for conspiracy were also deemed proper.
• United States v. Cohen
  163 F.2d 667· 3d Cir.· 1947-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by unduly restricting the cross-examination of the government's chief witness regarding his potential bias and interest in the case.
• Perez v. State
  691 So. 2d 1190· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-04-23 ·cited 5×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed Jose Perez's second-degree murder conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on excusable homicide as part of the manslaughter instruction, which constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal regardless of defen
• Smith v. State
  679 So. 2d 30· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-08-14 ·cited 5×
  Leonard Smith was convicted by jury of throwing a deadly missile into an occupied building after throwing a rock at a window at a youth development center. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by excluding testimony that would have impeached key state
• United States v. Teicher
  987 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court properly excluded evidence of a witness's religious beliefs offered to show bias and that the jury charge regarding 'knowing possession' of material non-public information was not reversible error.
• Patterson v. State
  501 So. 2d 691· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-01-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a defendant has an absolute right to cross-examine a prosecution witness about pending criminal charges, even if unrelated to the current case.
• United States v. Ciro
  753 F.2d 248· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the exclusion of a witness's juvenile adjudication did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or constitute an abuse of discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 609(d).
• Peret v. State
  301 So. 3d 437· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed a reckless driving conviction because the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim's bias. The court held that the defendant should have been allowed to question the victim about her motive to lie, stemming from a prior eviction by the d