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. Bramble
  641 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior marijuana possession conviction was error because it was not similar enough to the cocaine distribution charge to prove predisposition, and the trial court failed to conduct a Rule 403 balancing test. However, the court found that
• United States v. Bailey
  505 F.2d 417· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that while mentioning prior offenses in the opening statement and making preliminary admissibility rulings without a proffer were errors, they did not warrant reversal given the overwhelming evidence and the invalidity of the defenses raised.
• Whisby v. State
  262 So. 3d 228· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-12-18 ·cited 14×
  Whisby was convicted of armed kidnapping with intent to commit sexual battery and three counts of sexual battery against S.C. The trial court admitted evidence of a prior sexual battery committed by Whisby against W.W. less than twenty-four hours before the charged crimes. On app
• Bush v. Barnett Bank of Pinellas Cnty.
  916 F. Supp. 1244· M.D. Fla.· 1996-02-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was not a pleading subject to a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), and that factual references to Tracy Campbell were relevant to the discrimination claims. The court also found that the plaintiff had established a prim
• United States v. Figueroa
  976 F.2d 1446· 1st Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the denial of severance motions, evidentiary rulings, or the admission of tape transcripts and background hearsay.
• United States v. Royal
  972 F.2d 643· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of certain evidence, even if erroneous, was harmless error due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the defendant's sentence was properly calculated based on drug quantity as a sentencing factor.
• United States v. Schweihs
  971 F.2d 1302· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b) was not an abuse of discretion, and the district court properly considered the probative value against prejudice when deciding on redaction of offensive language. The court also found no abuse of discr
• United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez
  967 F.2d 1321· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing because the district court failed to adequately justify the extent of the upward departure.
• United States v. Tipton
  964 F.2d 650· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting handwriting identification testimony, the prosecutor's closing argument was not misconduct, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Freund v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc.
  956 F.2d 354· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding no manifest error in the exclusion of expert testimony, the denial of rebuttal evidence, the directed verdict, or the dismissal based on the statute of limitations.
• United States v. Osum
  943 F.2d 1394· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-25 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the transfer of the case was within the district court's discretion, the admission of evidence of subsequent uncharged offenses was proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the use of a summary witness was
• United States v. Desmarais
  938 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction and forfeiture, holding that the trial court did not err in bifurcating the trials, admitting evidence of a prior suspicious package, denying motions for acquittal, or in its jury instructions regarding forfeiture.
• United States v. Martinez
  938 F.2d 1078· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting evidence of firearms, large sums of cash, and illegal drugs seized from a residence and the defendant's person, as these items were probative of the defendant's involvement in drug trafficking.
• United States v. Hill
  953 F.2d 452· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's prior cocaine use was reversible error because it constituted inadmissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Ellzey
  936 F.2d 492· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that restricting cross-examination of a witness regarding pending state charges was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause, and that prosecutorial misconduct and the giving of an Allen instruction did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Amable Garcia
  936 F.2d 648· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to excuse jurors who had served on a prior narcotics trial, nor did it abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• Garnac Grain Co., Inc. v. F.Duane Blackley
  932 F.2d 1563· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exclusion of Professor Howard Stettler's expert testimony was an abuse of discretion, requiring reversal of summary judgment on earlier claims, but affirmed the exclusion of other expert testimony and the dismissal of a contract counterclaim.
• United States v. Mushtaq Malik
  928 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in limiting cross-examination regarding the defendant's alleged affiliations with terrorist organizations, nor in admitting evidence of prior bad acts or the meaning of an alias, as these rulings were within the court's discretion a
• United States v. Vinton Bedonie and Thomas Cly
  913 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal arson statute (18 U.S.C. § 81) includes motor vehicles and that the district court had jurisdiction to try the defendants for arson-murder under federal law, even though the indictment did not specifically reference § 81. The court also found no pl
• Midcoast Aviation, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp.
  907 F.2d 732· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The court should have instructed the jury on the defendant's theory of the case regarding officious and gratuitous services.
• Penelope Krist v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  897 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 14×
  Summary judgment for the defendant was proper because a rational jury could not find for the plaintiff based on the evidence presented, particularly the mother's testimony about the DES pill's characteristics and the defendant's evidence that it did not produce such pills.
• Danzy v. State
  553 So. 2d 380· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-12-11 ·cited 14×
  Robert Lee Danzy was convicted of sexual battery and appealed, contesting the admission of hearsay statements regarding the victim's sexual assault and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the victim's statements
• United States v. Lutrell Davis
  876 F.2d 71· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing the defendant's proposed jury instructions, admitting certain testimony, or excluding defense exhibits, and properly denied the motion for acquittal.
• Larry Ray & Linda Hanson v. Parkside Surgery Ctr.
  872 F.2d 745· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error by submitting the case to an eight-member jury, nor did it abuse its discretion on the other claims of error raised by the plaintiff.
• Marsee v. United States Tobacco Co.
  866 F.2d 319· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence and making discovery rulings, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• United States v. McCray Johnson
  857 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a bulletproof vest or in its jury instructions regarding constructive possession, intent, and motive.
• United States v. Hinds
  856 F.2d 438· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search warrant's description of 'cocaine paraphernalia' was sufficiently particular and that the search of the premises did not exceed the warrant's scope. The admission of hearsay statements and testimony about a seized gun was also deemed proper.
• United States v. Rios
  856 F.2d 493· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's findings regarding the credibility of law enforcement officers were not clearly erroneous, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute coc
• Long v. Laramie Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  840 F.2d 743· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its Title VII findings, but erred in granting summary judgment on some § 1983 and § 1985 claims due to the preclusive effect of administrative findings.
• United States v. Fernandez
  829 F.2d 363· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a cooperation agreement, even if erroneous, was harmless error, and that the trial in absentia and admission of a firearm were proper.
• United States v. Caldwell
  820 F.2d 1395· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements made during an IRS interview, nor in refusing to exclude testimony regarding corporate earnings and profits.
• United States v. Flitcraft
  803 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the defense of a good-faith misunderstanding of tax law constituted plain error, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Hammond
  781 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions for conspiracy and distributing controlled substances, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or admitting certain testimony.
• United States v. Weichert
  783 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 14×
  A defendant who does not testify at trial cannot challenge on appeal a ruling that an impeaching inquiry would be permitted under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b).
• United States v. Eldridge V. Black
  776 F.2d 1321· 6th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the immunity agreement did not protect the defendant from prosecution for perjury and obstruction of justice, as these are distinct offenses not covered by the immunity grant.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF Ind., Inc. v. Bath Iron Works Corp.
  773 F.2d 783· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the original 1950s design and the subsequent 1983 plans, as this evidence was relevant to Bath's defense.
• United States v. Touloumis
  771 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Percy
  765 F.2d 1199· 4th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of a competency examination, the admission of prior bad acts evidence, or the prosecutor's comments.
• Crawford v. Edmonson
  764 F.2d 479· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the deceaseds' prior misconduct and the testimony of a robbery victim, nor did it err in denying a motion for a directed verdict on liability for the shooting of one of the deceaseds.
• United States v. Hollister
  746 F.2d 420· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's alleged co-perpetrator's prior criminal activities was not an abuse of discretion, and that the jury instructions and supplemental communications did not deny the defendant due process or a fair trial.
• United States v. Melton
  739 F.2d 576· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a coconspirator's guilty plea, allowing rebuttal witnesses, or denying motions for mistrial.
• United States v. Mergist
  738 F.2d 645· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of accomplice testimony was harmless error, and the admission of extrinsic offense evidence was proper in a conspiracy case where intent remained a material issue.
• United States v. O'Leary
  739 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about prior drug transactions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was relevant for permissible purposes and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudic
• Koloda v. Gen. Motors Parts Div.
  716 F.2d 373· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-08 ·cited 14×
  The exclusion of evidence regarding the lack of prior similar claims or incidents was reversible error because such evidence is relevant to a defendant's knowledge of a product's dangerous propensities, a key issue in a failure-to-warn case.
• United States v. Braithwaite
  709 F.2d 1450· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellants' contentions lacked merit, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Dysart
  705 F.2d 1247· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of Dr. Leach, in its jury instructions, or in admitting evidence of prior threats, and that the defendant waived certain objections by failing to raise them timely.
• United States v. Greer
  702 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that when a defendant elicits testimony about his post-arrest silence on direct examination, the prosecution may cross-examine and comment on that silence to impeach the credibility of the explanation offered.
• United States v. Hamann
  688 F.2d 507· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that supplemental jury instructions and the admission of handwriting exemplars revealing incarceration did not violate the Silvern rule or constitute an abuse of discretion, respectively.
• United States v. Emery
  682 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Tisdale
  647 F.2d 91· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-24 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the admission of evidence concerning marijuana transactions was prejudicial error under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, requiring a new trial.