United States v. Anita Yates, 438 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Anita Yates, 438 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …providing the fact- finder with crucial evidence ⚠ not in text
264 citation events (264 in the last 25 years) across 48 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" State v. Kolaco
Del. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: but see · confidence high
United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the Craig decision and finding that merely a finding of exceptional circumstances and a furtherance of the interests of justice was necessary to approve trial testimony given through a two-way closed circuit television); but see United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that because the right to confront is compromised when confrontation occurs through an electronic medium, a trial court must fully apply the Craig analysis when permitting virtual testimony at trial). 19 States Constitution does…
discussed Cited "but see" Commonwealth v. Musser (2×) also: Cited "see"
Roanoke County Cir. Ct. · 2011 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“We reject this reasoning.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Ajaylan M Shabazz v. State of Indiana
Ind. · 2026 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the simple truth is that confrontation through a video monitor is not the same as physical facetoface confrontation.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State of Missouri v. Rodney A. Smith (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Mo. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the prosecutor's need for the video conference testimony to make a case and to expeditiously resolve it are not the type of public policies that are important enough to outweigh the defendants' rights to confront their accusers face-to-face.
examined Cited as authority (rule) People of Guam v. Stefan Keanu Camacho (3×) also: Cited "see"
Guam · 2025 · confidence medium
According to the Supreme Court, “though we reaffirm the importance of face-to-face confrontation with witnesses appearing at trial, we cannot say that such confrontation is an indispensable element of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to confront one’s accusers.” The Court goes on to say that this “does not, of course, mean that it may easily be dispensed with.” In United States v. Yates, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal put forth the following test for when face to face confrontation may be dispensable: “The court generally must: (1) hold an evidentiary hearing an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earl K. Johnson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. · 2025 · confidence medium
As to the “necessary” prong, while serious illness may be sufficient to satisfy this prong, “[t]here is also a general consensus among courts that mere convenience, efficiency, and cost-saving are not sufficiently important public necessities to justify depriving a defendant of face-to-face confrontation.” 4 In United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1314-18 (11th Cir. 2006), the Court determined there was no necessity to allow remote testimony even though the witnesses were in Australia, explaining that they could have been deposed there pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Proced…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Aghee Smith, II
4th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
As our colleagues on the Eleventh Circuit have explained, “the carefully-crafted provisions of Rule 15 . . . were designed to protect defendants’ rights to [a] physical face- to-face confrontation.” See United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. David Alcorn
4th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
As our colleagues on the Eleventh Circuit have explained, “the carefully-crafted provisions of Rule 15 . . . were designed to protect defendants’ rights to [a] physical face- to-face confrontation.” See United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Trabelsi (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2023 · confidence medium
The government had, at the time, proposed several “public interest” reasons that purportedly necessitated remote testimony, including “providing the fact-finder with crucial evidence, expeditiously and justly resolving the case, and ensuring that foreign witnesses can so testify.” Id. at 1315-16 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donnie Campbell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Ky. · 2023 · confidence medium
The Commonwealth made it seem as though Dr. Tucker took care of COVID patients, noting this Court’s 13 See U.S. v. Cotto-Flores, 970 F.3d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 2020); U.S. v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 242 (4th Cir. 2008); Horn v. Quarterman, 508 F.3d 306, 319 (5th Cir. 2007); U.S. v. Weekley, 130 F.3d 747, 753 (6th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Protho, 41 F.4th 812, 827 (7th Cir.); U.S. v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548, 554 (8th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2018); U.S. v. Carrier, 9 F.3d 867, 869 (10th Cir. 1993); and U.S. v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Cody Bragg v. State of Alabama (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ala. Crim. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
The majority of courts that have addressed this issue have analyzed this issue using 7 CR-21-0361 the test articulated in Maryland v. Craig.1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a circuit that includes Alabama, has "acknowledge[d] that Craig supplies the proper test for admissibility of two-way video conference testimony." United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dianelis Molina Noda (2×)
11th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Discussion A. Whether Noda’s Sixth Amendment Right was violated Noda argues that the district court erred by allowing Martin to be recalled as a witness and testify by video over Noda’s Confrontation Clause objection. “[W]e review de novo [a defendant’s] claim that [her] Sixth Amendment rights were violated.” United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Collins
A.F.C.C.A. · 2022 · confidence medium
See Ahern, 76 M.J. at 197 . 14 See United States v. Quarterman, 508 F.3d 306, 313 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Boudreaux, 400 F.3d 548, 552 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1999). 20 United States v. Collins, No. ACM 39296 (rem) Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Rodney A. Smith (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. · 2022 · confidence medium
App. 2020); United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199, 1208 (9th Cir. 2018); State v. Thomas, 376 P.3d 184, 193-94 (N.M. 2016); United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 240-41 (4th Cir. 2008); Bush v. State, 193 P.3d 203 , 214-15 12 (Wyo. 2008); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548, 554 (8th Cir. 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Gary Gardner
Ky. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199 , 1208 n.4 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 240-41 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548, 554-55 (8th Cir. 2005); State v. Mercier, 403 Mont. 34, 45 , 479 P.3d 967, 975 (2021) (noting that the “overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have applied Craig to two-way video procedures”); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 501-03 (Iowa 2014).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of: C.A.R.A. v. Jackson County Juvenile Office (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199 , 1208 n.4 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210 , 240- 41 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548 , 554–55 (8th Cir. 2005); State v. Mercier, 479 P.3d 967, 975 (Mont. 2021) (noting that the “overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have applied Craig to two-way video procedures”; collecting cases); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 501-03 (Iowa 2014).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. T. Mercier (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mont. · 2021 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199, 1207 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he Supreme Court crafted its two-part standard to constrain the use of one-way closed-circuit television[.]” (internal quotation and citation omitted)); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 502-503 (Iowa 2014) (noting it was joining large majority of jurisdictions surveyed in requiring the “Craig standard” of necessity and reliability).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haggard, James Ray
Tex. Crim. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Haggard–12 Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 240 (4th Cir. 2008) (same); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548, 554 (8th Cir. 2005) (same); Lipsitz v. State, 442 P.3d 138, 140 (Nev. 2019) (same); State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024 , ¶ 28, 376 P.3d 184, 194 (same); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 504 (Iowa 2014) (same); State v. Stock, 2011 MT 131, ¶¶ 25, 30 , 256 P.3d 899, 904 (same); Bush v. State, 2008 WY 108, ¶ 52 , 193 P.3d 203, 215 (same); Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364, 1369 (Fla. 1998) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Linda Lancon
11th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Tennessee v. Dennis Lee Seale
Tenn. Crim. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 2006).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jeffery Allmond, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Washington v. Abdul Rahman Sweidan (3×)
Wash. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2006).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Washington v. Abdul Rahman Sweidan (3×)
Wash. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Renado Smith
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
See id.; see also United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217, 1227 (11th Cir. 2012) (“A defendant’s claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated is reviewed de novo.”); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“[W]e review de novo Defendants’ claim that their Sixth Amendment rights were violated.”); United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 2000) (“We . . . give plenary review to claims of constitutional error for a failure to show the unavailability of an out-of-court declarant.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Renado Smith
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
See id.; see also United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217, 1227 (11th Cir. 2012) (“A defendant’s claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated is reviewed de novo.”); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“[W]e review de novo Defendants’ claim that their Sixth Amendment rights were violated.”); United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 2000) (“We . . . give plenary review to claims of constitutional error for a failure to show the unavailability of an out-of-court declarant.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LIPSITZ (RYAN) VS. STATE (2×)
Nev. · 2019 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313-17 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548, 554-55 (8th Cir. 2005); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 504-06 (Iowa 2014); White v. State, 116 A.3d 520, 544 (Md.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LIPSITZ (RYAN) VS. STATE
Nev. · 2019 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313-17 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548, 554-55 (8th Cir. 2005); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 504-06 (Iowa 2014); White v. State, 116 A.3d 520, 544 (Md.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gabriel Garcia-Solar
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. Laurel M. Lee
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
And consistent with our long practice of relying on the threat of penalty of perjury to guard against dishonesty and fraud, see United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1318 (11th Cir. 2006), the district court’s order allows a voter to attest that she was belatedly notified by declaring under penalty of perjury that she did not timely receive actual notice of signature mismatch. 13 Finally, we consider Florida’s interest in fundamental fairness and protecting public confidence in the legitimacy of the election.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. Laurel M. Lee
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
And consistent with our long practice of relying on the threat of penalty of perjury to guard against dishonesty and fraud, see United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1318 (11th Cir. 2006), the district court’s order allows a voter to attest that she was belatedly notified by declaring under penalty of perjury that she did not timely receive actual notice of signature mismatch. 13 Finally, we consider Florida’s interest in fundamental fairness and protecting public confidence in the legitimacy of the election.
examined Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of E. T., a Child (6×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“The admission of testimony by two-way video conference presents a mixed question of law and fact; therefore, we review de novo [the appellant’s] claim that [his] Sixth Amendment rights were violated.” United States v. Yates, 438 F3d 1307, 1311 (II) (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v.Thomas (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.M. · 2016 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 240-41 (4th Cir. 5 2008) (applying Craig to an analysis of the admissibility of two-way video testimony 6 under the Confrontation Clause); Yates, 438 F.3d at 1313-16 (applying Craig to test 7 the admissibility at trial of two-way video and listing cases from the Sixth, Eighth, 8 Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that have done the same); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 9 495, 503-04 (Iowa 2014) (acknowledging that live two-way video testimony is 10 different than the one-way connection addressed in Craig but relying on cases from 11 numerous state and f…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Thomas (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.M. · 2016 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 240-41 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying Craig to an analysis of the admissibility of two-way video testimony under the Confrontation Clause); Yates, 438 F.3d at 1313-16 (applying Craig to test the admissibility at trial of two-way video and listing cases from the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that have done the same); State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 503-04 (Iowa 2014) (acknowledging that live two-way video testimony is different than the one-way connection addressed in Craig but relying on cases from numerous state and federal jurisdict…
examined Cited as authority (rule) White v. State (3×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Id. at 1310.
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Iowa v. Zachariah J. Rogerson (7×) also: Cited "see"
Iowa · 2014 · confidence medium
Id. at 1315 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Iowa v. Zachariah J. Rogerson (2×) also: Cited "see"
Iowa · 2014 · confidence medium
Id. at 1315 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Iowa v. Zachariah J. Rogerson (2×) also: Cited "see"
Iowa · 2014 · confidence medium
Id. at 1315 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Partin
M.D. Ala. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even if the “Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to confront one’s accuser” is not entirely undermined by the use of the two-way closed-circuit television testimony at trial, it is nevertheless “most certainly compromised.” Yates, 438 F.3d at 1315.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Beltran (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although “confrontation through a video monitor is not the same as physical face-to-face confrontation” (United States v Yates, 438 F3d 1307, 1315 [11th Cir 2006]; see United States v Gigante, 166 F3d at 81 ), there is no constitutional infirmity if there has been a case-specific finding of necessity in furtherance of an important public policy (see United States v Yates, 438 F3d at 1315 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Beltran (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although “confrontation through a video monitor is not the same as physical face-to-face confrontation” (United States v Yates, 438 F3d 1307, 1315 [11th Cir 2006]; see United States v Gigante, 166 F3d at 81 ), there is no constitutional infirmity if there has been a case-specific finding of necessity in furtherance of an important public policy (see United States v Yates, 438 F3d at 1315 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rhonda Michelle Fee (2×)
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 849-50 , 110 S.Ct. 3157, 3165-66 , 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990); Yates, 438 F.3d at 1312.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rosenau (2×)
W.D. Wash. · 2012 · confidence medium
No. 97 at 10-11.) However, a more persuasive reading of Yates is that the Government must show good reason why video testimony is necessary, rather than simply claiming “convenience.” Yates, 438 F.3d at 1316-17.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lander
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citing United States v. Pistone, 177 F.3d 957, 958 (11th Cir.1999)). *1297 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and resolve any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the Government.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Larry P. Langford
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Edward Fee (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause "guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact.” Yates, 438 F.3d at 1312 (quotation marks omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Atkinson (4×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2009 · confidence medium
Id. at 1310.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Penny Morris
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311-12 (11th Cir.2006) (en banc).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Abu Ali (6×) also: Cited "see"
4th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Whatever the merits of the holding in Yates, the defendants there were charged with mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and drug-related offenses, see id. at 1310, crimes differ ent in both kind and degree from those implicating the national security interests here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Horn v. Quarterman (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548, 555 (8th Cir. 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pack
C.A.A.F. · 2007 · confidence medium
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1313-18 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548 , 553- 54 (8th Cir. 2005); State v. Henriod, 2006 UT 11, ¶ 13-17 , 131 P.3d 232, 237 ; State v. Blanchette, 134 P.3d 19, 29 (Kan.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Anita Yates
02-13654.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 30, 2005.
438 F.3d 1307
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

404 F.3d 1291

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Anita YATES, Anton F. Pusztai, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 02-13654.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 30, 2005.

Richard F. Matthews, Jr., Ronald W. Wise, The Law Office of Ronald W. Wise, Timothy C. Halstrom (Court-Appointed), Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Michael A. Rotker, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Crim. Div., Linda I. Marks, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Consumer Lit., Washington, DC, Tommie Brown Hardwick, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. 00-00109-CR-N-2); Anthony A. Alaimo, Judge.

[*~1307]1

(Opinion Nov. 24, 2004, 391 F.3d 1182, 11th Cir.2004)

[*~1315]2

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges[*].

BY THE COURT:

[*~1328]3

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

[*~1335]4

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.

Notes:

*

Senior United States Circuit Judge Emmett R. Cox has elected to participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c)