Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

2,249 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Orange Jell Beechum
  582 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 729×
  The dissent argues the majority misinterpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by broadly allowing evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, effectively overruling prior precedent ('Broadway') without sufficient justification.
• United States v. James
  590 F.2d 575· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 591×
  The court's construction of Rule 104 as the 'orthodox position' is questioned, favoring a division of preliminary evidence questions between judge and jury.
• United States v. Frazier
  387 F.3d 1244· 11th Cir.· 2004-10-15 ·cited 529×
  The district court abused its discretion by excluding the defense's expert witness testimony regarding the lack of forensic evidence and the expected findings in a sexual assault case. This exclusion, coupled with allowing the government's witnesses to testify as experts on the s
• Pardo v. State
  596 So. 2d 665· Fla.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 438×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a child victim's hearsay statements qualifying under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(23) may be admissible even when the child testifies fully at trial and the statements are characterized as prior consistent statements, but such statements remain subject
• United States v. Bell
  573 F.2d 1040· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 282×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire questions, admission of coconspirator statements, or jury instructions, and any errors in admitting testimony about the gun's purpose were harmless.
• United States v. Myers
  550 F.2d 1036· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 245×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by refusing to strike the testimony of alibi rebuttal witnesses whose identities were not disclosed prior to trial, and by admitting evidence of a prior bank robbery for identification purposes.
• In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. (D.C. MDL No. 189). Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
  723 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 237×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for most defendants because material issues of disputed fact remained, requiring reversal of the judgment as to those defendants.
• United States v. Louin Ray Bright
  630 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 230×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the pre-trial rulings, trial rulings, jury charge, or closing arguments.
• McLEAN v. State
  934 So. 2d 1248· Fla.· 2006-07-06 ·cited 224×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Fla. Stat. § 90.404(2)(b), which allows evidence of prior acts of child molestation in cases where the defendant is charged with child molestation, does not violate due process when applied in cases where identity is not disputed and the eviden
• United States v. Young
  745 F.2d 733· 2d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 205×
  The court held that while expert testimony on ambiguous conduct constituting criminal activity is admissible under certain circumstances, it must be carefully weighed against prejudice and cannot salvage an otherwise insufficient case.
• United States v. Adams
  759 F.2d 1099· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 184×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial, seized weapons were admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants.
• United States v. Shackleford
  738 F.2d 776· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 182×
  The court held that admitting testimony of prior similar misconduct was an abuse of discretion and not harmless error, requiring reversal of the extortion conviction. The court affirmed the conviction for possession of unregistered explosives.
• United States v. Robinson
  560 F.2d 507· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-28 ·cited 176×
• United States v. Mandel
  591 F.2d 1347· 4th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 173×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing certain jury instructions and admitting evidence, as the instructions adequately covered the law and the evidence was relevant to intent.
• United States v. Hartley
  678 F.2d 961· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 163×
  The court held that a corporation can conspire with its own officers, agents, and employees, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and RICO violations.
• United States v. Feldman
  788 F.2d 544· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 161×
  The court held that sua sponte dismissals restart the Speedy Trial Act clock, the warrantless search of the car was a lawful inventory search, and the defendant's other claims of error were either harmless or without merit.
• Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
  797 F.2d 1417· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 160×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of employment discrimination based on racial harassment and retaliatory discharge, and that the damage awards were not excessive.
• Bell v. City OF Milwaukee
  746 F.2d 1205· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 145×
  The court held that the district court properly admitted evidence of a conspiracy to conceal the truth and that certain civil rights claims were not time-barred.
• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Johnson
  575 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 139×
  The court held that there was no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, nor between the bill of particulars and the proof, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to define statutory terms like 'organizer' or 'substantial income'.
• State v. Vazquez
  419 So. 2d 1088· Fla.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 137×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a district court's decision to reverse convictions for second-degree murder and firearm offenses, finding that while severance of the firearm possession count was mandated due to prejudice from admitting a prior felony conviction, the district c
• Johnson v. State
  969 So. 2d 938· Fla.· 2007-07-05 ·cited 133×
  Richard Allen Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual battery with great force in the death of Tammy Hagin and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence after addressing claims regarding jury selection,
• Iver J. Freeman v. Package Mach. Co.
  865 F.2d 1331· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-22 ·cited 132×
  The court held that the defendant waived its challenge to the admissibility of statistical evidence by failing to make a contemporaneous objection at trial, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.
• United States v. Marabelles
  724 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-31 ·cited 130×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt for attempted tax evasion and filing a false tax return, and that the trial court did not err in excluding certain expert testimony or refusing a specific jury instruction.
• McWATTERS v. State
  36 So. 3d 613· Fla.· 2010-03-18 ·cited 129×
  Eugene McWatters was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of sexual battery arising from the 2004 strangulation murders of three women. He received death sentences for each murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and sentences, find
• United States v. Long
  574 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 129×
  The admission of evidence of other crimes, even if potentially prejudicial, was not reversible error because the objection was not specific and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• United States v. Griffin
  818 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 124×
  The court held that most of the defendant's claims were procedurally defaulted and not reviewable as plain error, and the remaining evidentiary rulings were either properly admitted or not preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Mealy
  851 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 123×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence or responding to jury questions.
• United States v. Booth
  669 F.2d 1231· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-27 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the district court did not err in suppressing Booth's statements regarding his reason for being in Portland and prior arrest record, but did err in suppressing the gun store list and the expert testimony regarding the absence of fingerprints. The court also fo
• United States v. Bailleaux
  685 F.2d 1105· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 121×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a change of venue, admitting evidence of prior criminal conduct, or admitting a taped conversation, as any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68611· S.D. Fla.· 2010-06-10 ·cited 119×
  The court held that a federal district court judge's testimony in a perjury trial is inadmissible when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
• Caldarera v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  705 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-27 ·cited 119×
  The court held that while the jury's damage awards were excessive, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial based on improper closing arguments or the exclusion of remarriage evidence. The court ordered a new trial unless plaintiffs accepted remittiturs to spe
• United States v. Figueroa
  618 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-26 ·cited 118×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the jury's verdict and the trial court's decisions regarding evidence admissibility and joint trial.
• United States v. Gary L. "Scott" Dickey
  736 F.2d 571· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 117×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Friedrich's conviction for conspiracy.
• United States v. Asnaldo Sanchez
  722 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, and that prejudicial remarks by government witnesses were cured by the trial court's instructions, thus denying a fair trial was not reversible e
• United States v. Masters
  622 F.2d 83· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-22 ·cited 114×
  The court held that statements made during negotiations for firearm sales, including discussions of other sales and the defendant's supply, were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to complete the story of the crime and establish the defendant's status as a dealer.
• United States v. Cook
  608 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 113×
  A defendant is entitled to appellate review of a denied Rule 609 motion without testifying, but must demonstrate prejudice from the ruling.
• Janich Bros., Inc. v. The Am. Distilling Co.
  570 F.2d 848· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-14 ·cited 112×
  The court affirmed the directed verdict on the attempt to monopolize claim, finding insufficient evidence of predatory conduct and that hearsay evidence of specific intent was properly excluded.
• United States v. Lustig
  555 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 111×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying continuances, dismissing a juror, limiting cross-examination, admitting testimony, or in its jury instructions, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Narcisa Savinovich
  845 F.2d 834· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 110×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of scales and firearms was not unfairly prejudicial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and attempted distribution.
• Gibson v. Mohawk Rubber Co.
  695 F.2d 1093· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the district court erred in its jury instructions regarding damages and in its equitable findings, necessitating a new trial on both legal and equitable relief.
• United States v. Mohammad Reza Mehrmanesh
  689 F.2d 822· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act sanctions for arrest-to-indictment delay do not apply because the defendant was arrested before the effective date of the sanctions, and that the admission of certain prior bad acts evidence was either admissible or harmless error.
• United States v. Herman
  589 F.2d 1191· 3d Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 108×
  A federal court can review a United States Attorney's discretionary refusal to seek immunity for a defense witness for abuse of discretion, and can order a judgment of acquittal if discretion is improperly exercised.
• United States v. McDONALD
  576 F.2d 1350· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain McDonald's convictions for mail fraud and interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained property, reversing his conviction. The convictions of the other appellants were affirmed.
• Walker v. Nationsbank OF Fla. N.A.
  53 F.3d 1548· 11th Cir.· 1995-06-12 ·cited 107×
  Walker, a female branch manager in her fifties, was terminated by NationsBank after receiving poor performance evaluations and allegedly failing to follow directives. She sued under Title VII and the ADEA, claiming sex and age discrimination. The district court excluded an EEOC d
• United States v. Montes-Cardenas
  746 F.2d 771· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of drug and firearms counts was proper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance or continuance motions.
• United States v. Escalante
  637 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy to import heroin, that severance was not required, and that the denial of a mistrial after prejudicial evidence was stricken was not an abuse of discretion.
• Furtado v. Bishop
  604 F.2d 80· 1st Cir.· 1979-07-26 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the admission of an attorney's affidavit under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) was proper, despite issues with pretrial notice and the judge's reasoning, because sufficient indicia of trustworthiness existed and the defendants were not prejudiced.
• United States v. Peters
  791 F.2d 1270· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 104×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the defendants, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on search warrants, property seizure, standing, grand jury proceedings, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Terzado-Madruga
  897 F.2d 1099· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 103×
  The court held that while the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by recording post-indictment conversations, the proper remedy was to exclude the evidence from the trial of the indicted charges, not to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence