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. DeShawn Lee Robinson
  978 F.2d 1554· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting gang affiliation evidence as substantive proof of guilt was improper, and that the prosecution breached a plea agreement with a defendant.
• United States v. Torres
  977 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts to prove intent and that the government met its burden of proof for the upward sentencing departure.
• United States v. Hartsfield
  976 F.2d 1349· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of gang membership and prior drug dealings, denying motions for mistrial, and utilizing mass jury selection, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Pinney
  967 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the admission of the sister's testimony about a prior alleged rape by the defendant was improper under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. The court found that while the testimony might have been admissible to show i
• United States v. Brooks
  966 F.2d 1500· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The prosecution's Brady obligations include a duty to search for exculpatory information in files held by agencies closely aligned with the prosecution, not just within the prosecutor's own office.
• United States v. Mitcheal Edmonson
  962 F.2d 1535· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions lacked merit, except for the issue concerning the fine under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which the government conceded. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Stevenson
  942 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction for Gary Stevenson and that the evidentiary rulings and sentences for Gary Stevenson, Barry Stevenson, and Ronald Vesper were not abuses of discretion.
• United States v. Benefield
  942 F.2d 60· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence and the defendant's pro se representation were proper, but the amended sentence increasing the term of imprisonment was illegal.
• Norstrom v. State
  587 So. 2d 1148· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-08-07 ·cited 8×
  Eric Norstrom's conviction for vehicular homicide, culpable negligence, and reckless driving was reversed because his post-accident statement to police was improperly admitted at trial. Although Miranda warnings were given, the statement fell within the statutory privilege of Flo
• United States v. Pretel
  939 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in determining jurisdiction as a matter of law, admitting evidence related to Marcomex, denying a motion to dismiss based on destroyed evidence, or in its jury instruction regarding the captain's knowledge.
• United States v. McMAHON
  938 F.2d 1501· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of access to grand jury testimony was harmless error, and that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's financial condition and the contents of a note was proper.
• United States v. Ferguson
  935 F.2d 1518· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the encounter with the defendant was consensual and that there was reasonable suspicion to detain his luggage for a canine sniff, thus the motion to suppress was properly denied. The evidence was also sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Bradshaw
  935 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to determine if the defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent, and remanded for this determination.
• United States v. Hargrove
  929 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence surrounding the defendant's arrest was admissible and that the admission of a witness's testimony in violation of a sequestration order was not an abuse of discretion, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. GAF Corp.
  928 F.2d 1253· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 8×
  Bills of particulars are not inadmissible per se, but their admission as evidence is exceptional and requires compelling circumstances.
• United States v. Isidro Farias-Farias
  925 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his prior arrests and the nature of those arrests, as this evidence was admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence of guilt, and any potential error was ha
• United States v. Santagata
  924 F.2d 391· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence of telephone orders, though not specifically charged counts, was independently admissible as direct proof of the wire fraud scheme, rendering the Rule 404(b) admission and cautionary instruction arguments moot.
• United States v. Sacco
  923 F.2d 970· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Jones
  913 F.2d 174· 4th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, the admission of expert testimony regarding drug courier profiles was error but harmless, and the defendant was not denied an opportunity to respond to objections to the pre-sentence report.
• United States v. Papia
  910 F.2d 1357· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury instructions on willfulness were proper, the aggregation of payments into counts was permissible, and the admission of the handwritten note was not plain error.
• United States v. Colombo
  909 F.2d 711· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-23 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Johnson
  903 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was not unlawfully seized and waived his right to appeal the ruling on the clothing demonstration by failing to testify.
• United States v. VAN Fossan
  899 F.2d 636· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no plain error in the magistrate's handling of the burden of proof, exclusion of evidence, or sentencing, and noting that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act may impose strict liability.
• United States v. Schatzle
  901 F.2d 252· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's jury instructions on excessive force were sound, its evidentiary rulings were proper, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Hawkins v. Hennepin Tech. Ctr.
  900 F.2d 153· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding sexual harassment and prior litigation findings was reversible error, depriving the plaintiff of a full opportunity to present her case.
• Nickerson v. G.D. Searle & Co. & Ortho Pharm. Corp.
  900 F.2d 412· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a new trial was not warranted based on the jury's verdict, newly discovered evidence, or the district court's evidentiary rulings.
• Palmer v. Krueger
  897 F.2d 1529· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that any minor errors were harmless.
• The DOW Chem. Corp. v. Weevil-Cide Co., Inc.
  897 F.2d 481· 10th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a subrogation claim accrues when the subrogor's claim accrues, not when payment is made, and that an insurer cannot tortiously interfere with its own insured's prospective contractual relations.
• Campbell v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co.
  893 F.2d 925· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, excluding evidence of a prior sexual assault, or entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• United States v. Chaverra-Cardona
  879 F.2d 1551· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning the underlying drug case was not unduly prejudicial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and solicitation to murder.
• Donnie D. Marshall and Christie A. Marshall v. EL Paso Natural GAS Co. & Meridian Oil Prod., Inc.
  874 F.2d 1373· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to refer the case to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, in excluding certain evidence, or in its jury instructions regarding punitive damages.
• Altobello v. Borden Confectionary Prods., Inc.
  872 F.2d 215· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-14 ·cited 8×
  A prior conviction for tampering with electric meters is admissible for impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) because it inherently involves deception.
• United States v. Jerkins
  871 F.2d 598· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the defendant attorney's conviction on all seven counts, finding sufficient evidence and proper admission of evidence.
• United States v. Portac, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants, the charges were properly joined, and no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• Fletcher v. O'Donnell
  867 F.2d 791· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding damages was not erroneous, but the trial court improperly excluded evidence relevant to the city's liability for excessive force.
• Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Chicago E. Corp.
  863 F.2d 508· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Chicago Eastern's implied warranty claims were not time-barred due to a statutory exception for counterclaims, and that the district court did not err in directing a verdict on the merchantability claim, in its jury instructions, or in admitting certain eviden
• United States v. Fortenberry
  860 F.2d 628· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic offenses evidence created undue prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value, requiring reversal of the denial of a new trial.
• United States v. Petary
  857 F.2d 458· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress Petary's statements, nor did it abuse its discretion in sentencing Petary or admitting evidence against Six. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
• Holley v. State
  523 So. 2d 688· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-03-30 ·cited 8×
  Julius Holley was convicted of sexual battery against a 15-year-old victim employed at his barbecue business. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to paternity blood test evidence (showing 98.2% probability of paternity), victim credibility issues, an
• United States v. King
  827 F.2d 864· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of a predicate act under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and that the appeal was properly before the court.
• United States v. Frasch
  818 F.2d 631· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to redact racially derogatory language from tape recordings, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the Hobbs Act conviction and the admission of co-conspirator statements.
• Heath v. Cast
  813 F.2d 254· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in seating an alternate juror by lot, the error was harmless. It also held that the state court's suppression ruling did not have preclusive effect and that the evidentiary rulings were not abuses of discretion.
• Monger v. The Cessna Aircraft Co.
  812 F.2d 402· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the presumption of due care, nor in its evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Harbour
  809 F.2d 384· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior misconduct to prove intent and in allowing cross-examination on related events, and that the defendants were properly sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 641.
• Johnson v. C.F. Ashby, M.D.
  808 F.2d 676· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived his challenge to the trial court's time limitations by failing to make a timely objection and offer of proof.
• Merrill L. Williams v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc.
  806 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Hughes' stop flying policy was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and that the district court did not err in denying the pilots' motions for partial summary judgment or their evidentiary motions.
• Maude Lanham v. Whitfield
  805 F.2d 970· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial, excluding evidence, limiting cross-examination, directing a verdict, or denying in forma pauperis status.
• United States v. Cleta Barrington
  806 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while the admission of officer testimony was error, it was harmless, and the double jeopardy claim lacked merit.
• Gauthier v. AMF, Inc.
  805 F.2d 337· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent remedial measures by non-parties, introduced to show a product was defective when made, is irrelevant and should be excluded under Rule 403 as an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. McCOLLUM
  802 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony, hearsay statements by a codefendant, and a supplemental jury instruction on knowledge were not erroneous, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.