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. Sawyer
  799 F.2d 1494· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 81×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt for mail and wire fraud, commodity fraud, interstate transportation of securities taken by fraud, and conspiracy.
• Parker v. State
  408 So. 2d 1037· Fla.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 81×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a state may refuse a defendant's offer to stipulate to a prior felony conviction and instead prove the conviction through a certified judgment when the prior conviction is an essential element of the crime charged. The court resolved a conflict
• Wade v. Haynes
  663 F.2d 778· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 81×
  The court held that punitive damages in a § 1983 action require a finding of actual malice, not merely reckless or callous disregard for a prisoner's rights.
• Williams v. State
  621 So. 2d 413· Fla.· 1993-07-01 ·cited 80×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that testimony about similar sexual battery incidents is admissible to rebut a consent defense when the evidence shows a common plan or scheme, not merely to prove propensity. The Court approved the admission of testimony from two prior victims desc
• United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez
  825 F.2d 572· 1st Cir.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding a defendant breached his plea agreement, that evidence of prior crimes was largely admissible under Rule 404(b), but that evidence admitted against one defendant violated collateral estoppel and required reversal.
• Macarthur Williams v. State
  492 So. 2d 1051· Fla.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 80×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Williams for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that introduction of the particulars of his prior armed robbery conviction at trial was not unduly prejudicial. The Court clarified that when a prior conviction
• United States v. Adcock
  558 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-14 ·cited 80×
  The dissenting judge believes certain testimony was improperly admitted due to lack of probative value and unfair prejudice, while other testimony was admissible.
• Vision I Homeowners Ass'n v. Aspen Specialty Ins.
  674 F. Supp. 2d 1321· S.D. Fla.· 2009-12-15 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the expert witness's qualifications and prior association with the opposing party go to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility, and denied the motion to strike.
• United States v. Sophie
  900 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Poliak's motion for an evidentiary hearing on his alleged plea agreement, nor in denying Laskowski's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, nor in admitting evidence of Laskowski's prior marijuana dealing
• United States v. Swiatek
  819 F.2d 721· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on outrageous government conduct, nor in admitting certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and that prosecutorial remarks, while sometimes improper, did not deprive the defendant
• United States v. Richardson
  764 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the government's use of a confidential informant did not constitute overreaching, evidence of prior bad acts was admissible, taped conversations were properly admitted, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and a variance between the indictment a
• United States v. Harrison A. Williams, Jr.
  705 F.2d 603· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-05 ·cited 78×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude the defendants were predisposed to commit the crimes charged, rejecting claims of entrapment as a matter of law and outrageous government conduct.
• United States v. Jones
  913 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Reed
  639 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 77×
  The court held that Reed's abduction did not violate due process, his trial in absentia was proper, the mail fraud counts were not multiplicitous, and evidence of similar transactions was admissible.
• Will v. Comprehensive Acct. Corp.
  776 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the franchisees failed to establish market power, thus their antitrust claims failed as a matter of law. However, damages awarded on contract claims were upheld due to lack of proper jury instructions by the defendant.
• United States v. Aleman
  592 F.2d 881· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and possession, and that the admission of extrinsic evidence and prosecutorial comments did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Martin
  505 F.2d 918· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the admission of prior misdemeanor convictions and irrelevant rebuttal testimony was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Drake Williams
  809 F.2d 1072· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed most convictions but reversed some for specific defendants, finding that plea agreements did not preclude further indictment and that informal use immunity granted to Grossman was binding.
• The United States v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1183· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the jury's verdict or the trial court's rulings on issues of conspiracy variance, interstate commerce, sentencing, evidence admissibility, prosecutorial misconduct, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Silverman
  745 F.2d 1386· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, the jury instructions were proper, the subpoena for disciplinary complaints was valid, and the exclusion of certain evidence was not an abuse of di
• United States v. Michaels
  726 F.2d 1307· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction and the defendant's participation in the conspiracy, and that the challenged evidentiary rulings and searches were proper.
• United States v. Spletzer
  535 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove specific intent to escape and that the admission of the full prior conviction for bank robbery was unduly prejudicial.
• State v. Augustus J. Rawls
  649 So. 2d 1350· Fla.· 1994-10-27 ·cited 73×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the admission of evidence of Rawls's prior sexual batteries of other young males to corroborate the victim's testimony in a capital sexual battery case, even though Rawls was not in a familial relationship with the charged victim. The Court expand
• United States v. Mills
  704 F.2d 1553· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence related to the Aryan Brotherhood, denying hybrid representation, or in its jury instructions. The court also found no violation of speedy trial rights or improper admission of character evidence.
• Abernathy v. Superior Hardwoods, Inc.
  704 F.2d 963· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-05 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was excessive because it lacked a rational connection to the evidence presented, particularly regarding lost earnings and future pain and suffering, and thus remanded for a new trial or remittitur.
• United States v. Kern
  657 F.2d 985· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-12 ·cited 73×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Burchinal, Kern, and Gerard for conspiracy and Travel Act violations, but remanded for reduction of costs assessed against Kern.
• United States v. Hendrix
  549 F.2d 1225· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in the procedure followed to address allegations of juror bias, nor did the alleged bias prejudice the defendant.
• Bevel v. State
  983 So. 2d 505· Fla.· 2008-03-20 ·cited 72×
  Thomas Bevel was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder in the February 2004 deaths of Garrick Stringfield and his son Phillip Sims, and the wounding of Feletta Smith. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Bevel's convictions an
• United States v. Bennett
  848 F.2d 1134· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the admission of William Bennett's prior drug smuggling convictions was proper under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403, and that the use of a single interpreter for multiple Spanish-speaking defendants did not violate their statutory or constitutional rights. The court
• United States v. Fabio Alonso
  740 F.2d 862· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-30 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress electronic surveillance evidence, admitting evidence of personal cocaine use, instructing the jury on the definition of an enterprise, or in limiting closing arguments. It also held that a RICO c
• United States v. Daniels
  572 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 72×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a defendant's unrelated, post-crime act to prove predisposition for entrapment is improper and requires reversal.
• Hank R. McWHORTER v. City OF Birmingham
  906 F.2d 674· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to improper closing arguments, denying the recusal motion, or excluding witness testimony.
• United States v. Julita De Parias
  805 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 71×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction existed under the Hobbs Act, and that limitations on cross-examination, admission of photographs, evidence of flight, co-defendant statements, and compelled hair samples were not reversible error.
• United States v. Corbin
  734 F.2d 643· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their procedural objections lacked merit.
• United States v. Hernandez
  896 F.2d 513· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Giral of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, but sufficient for Bauta and Hernandez. The admission of prior convictions under Rule 404(b) was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Pirovolos
  844 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 70×
  The court held that while admitting evidence of prior convictions was an error, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence. Cross-examination on other gun incidents at the restaurant was permissible.
• United States v. Wellington
  754 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings on the indictment amendment, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, severance, sufficiency of evidence, Speedy Trial Act claims, juror questionnaire use, or other miscellaneous assi
• United States v. Williams
  577 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's prior conviction was proper for corroboration and to show intent, and a post-conspiracy conversation was admissible as an adoptive admission.
• United States v. Amos P. Brown, Sr.
  548 F.2d 1194· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-18 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of IRS agent testimony, based on out-of-court statements from taxpayers and testifying from memory, constituted inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial "other crimes" evidence, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Hensley Garner
  837 F.2d 1404· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 69×
  Joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) because a conspiracy was alleged, and severance was not required under Rule 14 as defendants failed to show sufficient prejudice from the joint trial.
• United States v. Vito Sblendorio
  830 F.2d 1382· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 69×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient and that the district court did not commit plain error by deviating from the Silvern jury instruction, nor did prosecutorial comments on uncalled witnesses warrant a new trial.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. & Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1314· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 69×
• United States v. Rubin
  609 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 69×
  The limitations in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) apply only to the use of prior consistent statements as affirmative evidence, not when they are used solely for rehabilitation.
• United States v. Athanasios Theodoropoulos
  866 F.2d 587· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 68×
  The court held that expert testimony on coded conversations and defendants' roles was admissible, and that sufficient evidence supported the drug and firearm convictions.
• Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  787 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on comparative negligence, requiring a new trial. However, other evidentiary and instructional rulings were affirmed.
• United States v. Sigfredo Rivera-Sola
  713 F.2d 866· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of attempted possession with intent to distribute, that evidence of other crimes was properly admitted to show intent, and that the magistrate's participation in jury selection and preliminary instructions d
• United States v. Hitsman
  604 F.2d 443· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-15 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or motions.
• United States v. Sangrey
  586 F.2d 1312· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-28 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of rebuttal testimony concerning a prior sexual assault was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Rule 403, even without an explicit statement of balancing by the trial judge.
• United States v. Sullivan
  919 F.2d 1403· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 67×
  The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude Mary Sullivan 'used' a firearm during the commission of a felony, satisfying 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
• United States v. Reme
  738 F.2d 1156· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-09 ·cited 67×
  The court affirmed the convictions for transporting and conspiring to transport illegal aliens but vacated one defendant's sentence due to the sentencing judge's reliance on unproven murder charges.