6 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bruton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126 (1966) (holding that a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation occurred when a non-testifying codefendant’s confession was admitted at trial). 1990In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), the Supreme Court held that the admission of a confession of a non-testifying code-fendant deprived a defendant of his rights under the sixth amendment confrontation clause and was so prejudicial that a limiting instruction could not cure the harm. | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Similarly, in Smith v. State, 28 So. 3d 838, 853-55 (Fla. 2009), the Florida Supreme Court rejected an argument that the person who conducted a DNA test had to testify in order to avoid a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation. 2022There, non-testifying biologists performed the DNA test, but the state presented the testimony of “the FBI team supervisor, a forensic DNA examiner who interpreted the data, formulated the conclusions, and prepared the official report.” Id. at 853 . | 1 | 1 |
Puiatti v. Stategreen1 sentence1990An exception to this general rule was created in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62 , 99 S.Ct. 2132 , 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979) in which the plurality held that a non-testifying codefendant’s confession could be admitted, with limiting instructions to the jury, where there were “interlocking” confessions, id. at 75 , 99 S.Ct. at 2140 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 725 , that is, where the “ ‘salient facts against the first defendant that appear in the confession of the second defendant also appear in the confession of the first, and vice versa.’ ” Puiatti v. State, 521 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Fla.1988) (citation omitted) | 1 | 1 |
California v. Greenred2 sentences1988See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). 1988See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Randolph
red
2 sentences1990An exception to this general rule was created in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62 , 99 S.Ct. 2132 , 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979) in which the plurality held that a non-testifying codefendant’s confession could be admitted, with limiting instructions to the jury, where there were “interlocking” confessions, id. at 75 , 99 S.Ct. at 2140 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 725 , that is, where the “ ‘salient facts against the first defendant that appear in the confession of the second defendant also appear in the confession of the first, and vice versa.’ ” Puiatti v. State, 521 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Fla.1988) (citation omitted) 1990An exception to this general rule was created in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62 , 99 S.Ct. 2132 , 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979) in which the plurality held that a non-testifying codefendant’s confession could be admitted, with limiting instructions to the jury, where there were “interlocking” confessions, id. at 75 , 99 S.Ct. at 2140 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 725 , that is, where the “ ‘salient facts against the first defendant that appear in the confession of the second defendant also appear in the confession of the first, and vice versa.’ ” Puiatti v. State, 521 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Fla.1988) (citation omitted) | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences1989Pointer v Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 (1968). 1989Pointer v Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 (1968). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Schneble v. Florida
green
2 sentences1986Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Hall v. State, 381 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1978); Broome v. State, 194 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Seely v. State, 191 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1967). 1986Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Hall v. State, 381 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1978); Broome v. State, 194 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Seely v. State, 191 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1967). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence1986Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Hall v. State, 381 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1978); Broome v. State, 194 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Seely v. State, 191 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1967). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Seely v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Hall v. State, 381 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1978); Broome v. State, 194 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Seely v. State, 191 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1967). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Broome v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Hall v. State, 381 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1978); Broome v. State, 194 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Seely v. State, 191 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1967). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Nicholls v. Nicholls
green
1 sentence1986Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Hall v. State, 381 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1978); Broome v. State, 194 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Seely v. State, 191 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1967). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.