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. Beasley
  809 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 103×
  The court held that the admission of extensive evidence of prior bad acts to show intent was improper because the district court failed to properly exercise its discretion by balancing probative value against prejudicial effect, and this error was not harmless for the counts rela
• United States v. Roberts
  618 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-07 ·cited 103×
  The District Court for the District of Arizona lacked jurisdiction to enter judgments of conviction after transferring the indictment to the Southern District of California.
• United States v. Torres
  901 F.2d 205· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 102×
  The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one firearm conviction and vacated others for resentencing due to jury instruction errors regarding continuing criminal enterprise.
• United States v. Covelli
  738 F.2d 847· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the arrest of Robert Covelli was based on probable cause, and the admission of certain evidence, including details of the murder and prior weapon possession, was not an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed Covelli's convictions.
• Butler v. State
  842 So. 2d 817· Fla.· 2003-04-03 ·cited 101×
  Harry Butler was convicted of first-degree murder in the stabbing and asphyxiation death of his former girlfriend Leslie Fleming and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, rejecting claims regarding the admission of prior domesti
• Marx & Co., Inc. v. The Diners' Club, Inc.
  550 F.2d 505· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-25 ·cited 101×
  The court held that admitting an expert witness's testimony on legal conclusions and contract interpretation was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the breach of contract judgment, but affirmed the dismissal of securities fraud claims and the jury's verdict on counterclaims
• United States v. Smith
  459 F.3d 1276· 11th Cir.· 2006-08-11 ·cited 100×
  Appellate courts should rarely, if ever, notice plain evidentiary errors in criminal cases where no objection was made at trial. This is because the decision not to object is often a strategic choice by defense counsel, and appellate courts are ill-suited to distinguish between s
• Cullen v. Margiotta
  811 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the tolling principle in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah should not apply to toll the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' section 1983 and RICO claims because the state court action did not provide sufficient notice of the federal claims.
• United States v. Bohr
  581 F.2d 1294· 8th Cir.· 1978-07-26 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior crimes, the introduction of a mug shot, the denial of severance, prosecutorial remarks, juror misconduct, and the exclusion of polygraph evidence did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Chalan
  812 F.2d 1302· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's statements, but erred in imposing consecutive sentences for two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and in excluding certain hearsay statements.
• United States v. Norton
  867 F.2d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that various evidentiary and prosecutorial rulings were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Graham Lee Kendall
  766 F.2d 1426· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 96×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported Kendall's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and for violating the Travel Act, and that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper.
• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Green
  548 F.2d 1261· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the admission of extensive, irrelevant, and prejudicial expert testimony regarding the properties, street value, and potential for abuse of DMT, as well as the economic incentives for its manufacture, constituted a violation of the defendants' due process righ
• Farner v. Paccar, Inc.
  562 F.2d 518· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-31 ·cited 94×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict that a design defect in the truck's suspension system proximately caused the accident, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence.
• United States v. Williford
  764 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 93×
  The court held that evidence of a cocaine negotiation was admissible as inextricably intertwined with the charged marijuana conspiracy, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to import marijuana.
• United States v. Lippner
  676 F.2d 456· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 93×
  The court held that a prior conviction pending appeal is not considered 'final' for the purpose of imposing enhanced sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
• United States v. Elkins
  885 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 92×
  The court affirmed the conspiracy conviction, finding the indictment adequately charged conspiracy to defraud the United States and the jury was properly instructed. The court also affirmed the conviction related to export violations, finding the Allen charge was not coercive and
• United States v. Chaimson
  760 F.2d 798· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-24 ·cited 92×
  The court agrees that the evidence was admissible under other exceptions, thus the trial judge did not abuse discretion.
• United States v. Augustus Charles Bobo
  586 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 92×
  A defendant's consent to a mistrial, given through counsel, bars a subsequent double jeopardy claim, even if the mistrial was declared due to defense counsel's error and the defendant did not personally waive the right on the record.
• United States v. Blackwell
  694 F.2d 1325· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish plain error on appeal due to an incomplete record and the novelty of the constitutional issue raised.
• United States v. Diggs
  649 F.2d 731· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-29 ·cited 91×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that evidence seized from an abandoned motel room was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. McNEESE
  901 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to issue the search warrants, and that the defendants failed to demonstrate material omissions from the affidavit under the Franks test.
• United States v. Liefer
  778 F.2d 1236· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 90×
  The court held that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to prove specific intent, an essential element of the crime, even if the defendant denies committing the act itself. The court also held that prosecutorial misconduct and the denial of a lesser
• United States v. Severo D. Espinosa
  771 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 90×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or mistrial based on co-defendant's opening statement.
• United States v. Southard
  700 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a Franks hearing, admitting evidence of gambling activities, or finding the evidence sufficient for conviction, and that the ex parte, in camera interview was harmless error.
• United States v. Zapata
  871 F.2d 616· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-24 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug transaction, refusing to strike testimony after a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment, or admitting hotel registration records. Any error in the jury instruction regarding pr
• Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
  764 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of pregnancy rates and fraudulent reporting, nor in striking punitive damages prayers. However, the court found error in the jury instruction regarding unavoidable danger and the admission of sexual history
• United States v. Downing
  753 F.2d 1224· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-25 ·cited 88×
  The court held that expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identifications can be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702 if it meets the helpfulness standard and survives preliminary scrutiny. The district court erred in excluding such testimony outright.
• United States v. Arlan Lamar Robinson
  700 F.2d 205· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 88×
  The court affirmed convictions for misrepresentation but remanded for further proceedings on the extortion conviction due to insufficient record regarding the admissibility of extrinsic offense evidence.
• United States v. Evans
  697 F.2d 240· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 88×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and that the admission of prior wrongful acts testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Parker
  549 F.2d 1217· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-10 ·cited 88×
  The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding no reversible error in the admission of confessions, the legality of arrests, prosecutorial comments, or the handling of evidence.
• United States v. Deral Gene Holman
  680 F.2d 1340· 11th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in conducting the voir dire, admitting evidence of prior similar acts, or limiting cross-examination, as the procedures followed and evidence admitted were permissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and relevan
• Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.
  630 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-10 ·cited 87×
  The court held that feedlot operators, acting as agents with an interest in the contract and as party promisees, are the real parties in interest under Texas law and thus have standing to sue the packer for unpaid cattle purchases.
• Dorsett v. State
  944 So. 2d 1207· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-12-20 ·cited 86×
  Russell Dorsett appeals his convictions for sale of cocaine and marijuana, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence of a prior uncharged hand-to-hand drug transaction that occurred during the same surveillance operation. The appellate court affirms, holding that the pr
• United States v. Hawkins
  823 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-17 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the defendant's Miranda waiver and confession were voluntary, the admission of testimony regarding his plans to trade guns for cocaine was proper, and the refusal to give an entrapment instruction was correct.
• United States v. Soulard
  730 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence related to the bank deposits method, summary charts, comparison of gross receipts, or extrinsic actions, nor in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Peltier
  585 F.2d 314· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding Peltier's prior attempted murder charge, his flight from law enforcement in Oregon, and weapons found in an exploded vehicle was proper and did not deny him due process or a fair trial.
• United States v. Vaccaro
  816 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 85×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper, severance was not required, and evidence of other crimes was admissible under Rule 404(b). Aiding and abetting violations of the Travel Act do not require proof of knowledge of interstate facility use.
• United States v. Johnson
  637 F.2d 1224· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, adopting the 'inherent relationship' test for identifying such offenses.
• United States v. Loretta Walton (89-1862)
  908 F.2d 1289· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 84×
  The court held that a witness's passing, unprompted reference to a polygraph examination, followed by a curative instruction, was harmless error. It also held that the defendants did not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecution's use of peremptory
• United States v. Martino
  759 F.2d 998· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 84×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the admission of a prior conviction was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Gordon
  780 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, extrinsic evidence was properly admitted with limiting instructions, cross-examination was not unduly restricted, and inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible.
• United States v. Roberts
  619 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 83×
  The court held that evidence seized under the plain view doctrine was admissible and that the admission of a prior conviction to prove intent in a conspiracy case was proper.
• United States v. Brady
  595 F.2d 359· 6th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the admission of photographs of the victims and expert testimony on hair comparison did not constitute reversible error, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. McKINNELL
  888 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-27 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's car was valid under exceptions for searches incident to arrest and probable cause, that possession with intent to distribute is a valid predicate offense for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and that th
• United States v. Lyles
  593 F.2d 182· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by modifying its jury instructions after summations, denying severance motions, or admitting certain evidence, as no substantial prejudice was demonstrated.
• United States v. Stirling
  571 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the defendant's grand jury testimony into evidence.
• Huggins v. State
  889 So. 2d 743· Fla.· 2004-12-02 ·cited 81×
  John Steven Huggins was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the June 10, 1997 murder of Carla Larson in Orange County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and death sentence on direct appeal.
• Owen v. Crosby
  854 So. 2d 182· Fla.· 2003-07-11 ·cited 81×
  Duane Eugene Owen, a death row inmate, challenged his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder, sexual battery, and burglary through a successive motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850 and a habeas corpus petition. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the