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. Kelley
  981 F.2d 1464· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the co-defendant's voluntary consent to search the vehicle cured any potential Fourth Amendment violation arising from the traffic stop and subsequent detention, and that evidence of flight and prior convictions were properly admitted.
• United States v. Waldrip
  981 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior forgery and bribery for impeachment purposes, and that the exclusion of settlement evidence was proper as it was irrelevant to the charged offenses.
• United States v. Pardue
  983 F.2d 835· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding entrapment as a matter of law and outrageous government conduct, as sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find the defendant predisposed to commit the crime.
• United States v. Williams
  980 F.2d 1463· D.C. Cir.· 1992-12-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that expert testimony regarding the intent of a hypothetical drug possessor, clarified by the judge as general modus operandi, does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), and that a sentencing judge lacks authority to depart downward to reduce disparity among
• United States v. Spinosa
  982 F.2d 620· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, excluding prior bad acts evidence, admitting telephone records, or denying a missing witness instruction, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Reed
  977 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1992-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant waived his objection to the admissibility of prior conviction evidence by failing to make a timely objection and that the jury reasonably found no entrapment.
• United States v. McINNIS
  976 F.2d 1226· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction for interfering with housing rights and using a firearm during a crime of violence, but remanded for resentencing on the civil rights charge due to an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Castro-Lara
  970 F.2d 976· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that defendants' arguments lacked merit, affirming their convictions. A timely post-trial motion preserves appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency, and informant testimony offered for context is not hearsay.
• United States v. Hall
  969 F.2d 1102· D.C. Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the appellant's consent to search was voluntary, and there was sufficient evidence to support her conviction.
• Anderson v. State
  598 So. 2d 276· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-05-13 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Turner
  960 F.2d 461· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant's proposed jury instructions, in allowing the use of prior felony convictions for impeachment, or in denying the defendant's motions for acquittal.
• United States v. Sanders
  964 F.2d 295· 4th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior similar convictions for assault and contraband possession was an abuse of discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 609(a) and 404(b), and this error was prejudicial to the assault conviction but harmless to the contraband possessi
• United States v. Morris
  957 F.2d 1391· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or denying the production of FBI reports.
• Tait v. Armor Elevator Co.
  958 F.2d 563· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding Armor's duty of care were proper under Pennsylvania law, and that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for Prudential because a jury could find Prudential retained sufficient control over the elevators to be h
• United States v. Lara
  956 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of another prosecution for impeachment purposes and correctly applied the sentencing guidelines in calculating the loss amount.
• United States v. Masat
  948 F.2d 923· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its voir dire procedure, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or in denying disclosure of exculpatory materials, and that it had proper jurisdiction.
• United States v. Sides
  944 F.2d 1554· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, and that the admission of prior convictions and crime scene photographs, as well as prosecutorial remarks, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Hines
  943 F.2d 348· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop, the subsequent seizure of evidence was lawful, the jury selection was proper, the admission of parole officer testimony was not an abuse of discretion, and the sentencing determinations under the
• United States v. Menard
  939 F.2d 599· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• United States v. Schnabel
  939 F.2d 197· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing supplemental voir dire, admitting tax returns and secretary's testimony, denying a motion for acquittal based on variance, or giving a willful blindness instruction.
• United States v. Begay
  937 F.2d 515· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual activity, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. A.L. Hollingsworth, Jr.
  931 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in barring a defendant from testifying, requiring a new trial on the RICO claim against him. It also affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful attachment counterclaim due to speculative damages.
• Owen v. Patton
  925 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the exclusion of certain statements as party admissions was erroneous, the error was non-prejudicial, and other evidentiary rulings were proper or waived by lack of objection.
• United States v. Carswell
  922 F.2d 876· D.C. Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant's proposed expert witness testimony.
• Lal R. Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  922 F.2d 184· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would reinstate the first jury's liability verdict for the plaintiffs and remand for a new trial on damages, arguing the district court erred in granting a new trial and in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Brookins
  919 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. ONO
  918 F.2d 1462· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior conviction for intent and knowledge, but erred in calculating the base offense level by applying a potency multiplier for a controlled substance analogue.
• United States v. Parkin
  917 F.2d 313· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and distribution of cocaine and marijuana, finding that evidence admitted was properly handled under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that jury selection by a magistrate was permissible with consent.
• United States v. Bolick
  917 F.2d 135· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding unrelated LSD sales by a witness was proper background evidence, and the admission of a statement corroborating testimony was also proper, despite procedural arguments.
• United States v. Emilano Gomez-Gallardo
  915 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that calling a witness solely to impeach them with otherwise inadmissible evidence constitutes plain error when it affects substantial rights and undermines the fairness of the judicial process.
• Tex. Commercial Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Corp.
  898 F.2d 460· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even when viewing the evidence favorably to the non-moving party, the plaintiff failed to establish proximate causation for tortious interference.
• United States v. Conners
  894 F.2d 987· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury instructions adequately covered the defendant's good faith defense, the exclusion of certain evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the embezzlement and false entry charges were not duplicitous.
• United States v. Johnson
  893 F.2d 451· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent tax conduct was admissible to show intent and absence of mistake, and a prosecutor's remark about non-payment on amended returns did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Ratliff
  893 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the jurisdictional amount and intent for the National Stolen Property Act violations, and that evidence of other crimes was properly admitted.
• Leefe v. AIR Logistics, Inc.
  876 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony deemed cumulative and that the jury's damage award was supported by the evidence.
• Pinkham v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co.
  874 F.2d 875· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence, the directed verdict on the Boiler Inspection Act claim, or the jury instructions.
• Lamborn v. Dittmer
  873 F.2d 522· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by preventing the defendant from calling the plaintiffs' counsel as a witness, which was crucial for the defense's case regarding the partnership agreement's interpretation.
• Culli v. Marathon Petroleum Co.
  862 F.2d 119· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence under the theory of constructive notice based on a pattern of inadequate maintenance and inspection, even without specific evidence of how long the spill existed.
• Jordan v. Clayton Brokerage Co. OF ST. Louis, Inc.
  861 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the punitive damages award was not excessive and that the admission of evidence concerning a larger fraudulent plan was proper. The court also rejected constitutional challenges to the award.
• United States v. Micke
  859 F.2d 473· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge holds that the admission of testimony regarding defendant's offer to backdate documents for another taxpayer was an abuse of discretion and that the disqualification of defendant's chosen co-counsel was improper.
• United States v. Mahmoud Safari
  849 F.2d 891· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that collateral estoppel does not apply when the federal government prosecutes after an unsuccessful state action due to the lack of identity of parties. The court also affirmed the admissibility of evidence seized and the convictions.
• United States v. Moore
  845 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of prior letters, while potentially prejudicial, was not reversible error because they were relevant to the defendant's state of mind and any error was harmless due to cumulative evidence.
• Bastow v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  844 F.2d 506· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a plaintiff's evidence of causation for a strict liability claim was sufficient to overcome a motion for directed verdict, but affirmed the exclusion of expert testimony regarding the plaintiff's character for truthfulness.
• United States v. Goodoak
  836 F.2d 708· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 4×
  Evidence of the victim's state of mind is relevant to prove attempted extortion, and testimony explaining the reasons for that state of mind, even if referencing organized crime, is admissible if not unfairly prejudicial.
• Schultz v. Thomas
  832 F.2d 108· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a state trial judge's testimony and decision regarding witness credibility in a subsequent federal civil rights trial constitutes an abuse of discretion and reversible error.
• United States v. Richard D. Reed (86-3379)
  821 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for acquittal, excluding evidence, or denying a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution.
• Duffell v. S. Walton Emergency Servs., Inc.
  501 So. 2d 1352· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-01-26 ·cited 4×
  The trial court erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior drug use, as its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and the error was not invited or waived. Furthermore, the admission of hearsay statements from a traffic accident
• United States v. Eaton
  808 F.2d 72· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions on constructive possession, when read as a whole, were not misleading, and that the cross-examination of the defendant regarding his prior conviction and drug use was permissible because the defendant opened the door to these subjects.
• United States v. Cunningham
  804 F.2d 58· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while admitting a co-conspirator's guilty plea was error, it was harmless, and the prosecutor's improper reference to excluded evidence in closing argument, without a timely objection, did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Smith
  792 F.2d 441· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant who procures a witness's absence waives confrontation and hearsay objections to the witness's prior statement, and that the admission of a redacted, interlocking confession, even without a limiting instruction, was permissible.