Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

2,249 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co.
  738 F.2d 1509· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-13 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the defendant's challenge to the jury instructions on the relevant market was not properly preserved for appeal and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of monopolization under the essential facilities doctrine and intent test.
• United States v. Frederickson
  601 F.2d 1358· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-17 ·cited 67×
  The court held that statements made by the defendant could constitute a "true threat" under 18 U.S.C. § 871 if they were made with the intent to convey the impression that the threat was serious, considering the surrounding circumstances and distinguishing them from political hyp
• United States v. Danzey
  594 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 67×
  The court held that evidence of similar acts was admissible to prove identity and that a witness's identification testimony, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient to support a conviction.
• Dollar v. Long MFG
  561 F.2d 613· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-21 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery of prior accidents and in excluding a warning letter offered for impeachment.
• United States v. Raineri
  670 F.2d 702· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in pretrial or trial rulings, and that the evidence was sufficient.
• United States v. Benton
  637 F.2d 1052· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior homicides to show motive, and that the jury's verdict was not facially inconsistent. The court also found no reversible error in the other issues raised.
• Caruso v. State
  645 So. 2d 389· Fla.· 1994-10-06 ·cited 65×
  Michael Caruso, Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in the 1987 deaths of an elderly couple in Pembroke Pines, Florida. The jury voted 11-1 to recommend life sentences on both counts, but the trial judge overrode the recommendation and sentenced Caruso to death
• Huhn v. State
  511 So. 2d 583· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-04-08 ·cited 65×
  Eduardo Huhn was convicted of armed kidnapping and aggravated assault with a firearm arising from a drug trafficking-related kidnapping scheme. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial due to multiple errors by the prosecutor and trial court, incl
• United States v. Garcia-Rosa
  876 F.2d 209· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 64×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. However, it found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain extrinsic act evidence.
• United States v. Ingraham
  832 F.2d 229· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-29 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior letters and telephone calls under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as they bore a sufficient signature to establish identity, and that statements made at a bail hearing a
• Rothgeb v. United States
  789 F.2d 647· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 64×
  The court held that a sentence of 210 years for second-degree murder is not within statutory limits and improperly postpones parole eligibility.
• United States v. August Carl Benz
  740 F.2d 903· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 64×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Benz on both counts and that the district court's rulings were correct, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Zeuli
  725 F.2d 813· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-19 ·cited 64×
  The court held that evidence of other bad acts was admissible to prove intent in a conspiracy case and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such evidence or in refusing a jury instruction on a theory not supported by the facts.
• United States v. Badolato
  701 F.2d 915· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 64×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of conspiracy and rejecting claims of evidentiary and procedural errors.
• United States v. Moschiano
  695 F.2d 236· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 64×
  The court held that post-indictment statements constituting new criminal acts are admissible, and subsequent similar acts can be used to prove predisposition, while severance was not warranted due to limiting instructions and a discriminating verdict.
• United States v. Larios
  640 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-28 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the note was admissible, but the sentencing judge abused his discretion by failing to adequately familiarize himself with the case, requiring resentencing by a new judge.
• United States v. James
  609 F.2d 36· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 64×
  The court held that while some evidentiary rulings were erroneous, they did not cumulatively or individually require reversal of the convictions. The court affirmed the judgments of conviction.
• United States v. Weir
  575 F.2d 668· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the admission of 'other crimes' evidence, which was highly prejudicial and not substantially outweighed by its probative value, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Piccinonna
  885 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 63×
  Polygraph evidence should not be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or 608 because the scientific community is divided on its reliability, it is only slightly better than chance at detecting lies, and it carries a high risk of prejudice, confusion, and wasted time.
• United States v. Sterling
  742 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike testimony due to a Jencks Act violation, and that sufficient evidence supported the continuing criminal enterprise conviction.
• United States v. Barrett
  703 F.2d 1076· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the denial of a continuance for the defense to obtain a photographic expert was harmless error, but the trial court abused its discretion by failing to investigate a juror's claim of sleeping during the trial.
• Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. Marine Office-Appleton & COX Corp.
  579 F.2d 561· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the "all risks" insurance policy covered the collapse of the underground cavern, as the loss was fortuitous and not within the policy's exclusions, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, venue decision, or interest
• Alphonso Cave v. State
  660 So. 2d 705· Fla.· 1995-09-21 ·cited 62×
  The Florida Supreme Court vacated Alphonso Cave's death sentence imposed at resentencing, finding two reversible errors: the trial judge improperly conducted a full evidentiary hearing on Cave's motion for disqualification (rather than determining only legal sufficiency), and the
• United States v. Mazza
  792 F.2d 1210· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-03 ·cited 62×
  The admission of DEA agents' testimony repeating an informer's out-of-court statements was erroneous hearsay, but the error was harmless because other properly admitted evidence overwhelmingly supported the conviction.
• United States v. Terebecki
  692 F.2d 1345· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 62×
  The trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence relevant to the defendant's intent to defraud.
• United States v. Foskey
  636 F.2d 517· D.C. Cir.· 1980-08-05 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a prior arrest was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. DAY
  591 F.2d 861· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the introduction of certain other-crimes evidence and hearsay testimony was improper, requiring reversal in part.
• United States v. Cardenas
  895 F.2d 1338· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 61×
  The court held that testimony regarding prior drug use and distribution was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and knowledge, and under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) to contradict the defendant's material testimony.
• United States v. Raimundo Crespo de Llano
  830 F.2d 1532· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 61×
  The court held that a trial court's failure to personally advise jointly represented defendants of their right to separate counsel under Rule 44(c) does not mandate reversal unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the lawyer's performance. The court also held tha
• United States v. Finestone
  816 F.2d 583· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding a murder and prior marijuana smuggling activities was not an abuse of discretion, and the refusal of requested jury instructions on withdrawal and alibi was proper.
• United States v. McKOY
  771 F.2d 1207· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 61×
  The court held that a former prosecutor's testimony expressing his opinion on the strength of the government's case and the defendant's culpability constituted prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Weisz
  718 F.2d 413· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the defendants' contentions were without merit, affirming their convictions.
• Brown v. Trs. OF Boston Univ.
  891 F.2d 337· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-01 ·cited 60×
  Once a university has been found to have impermissibly discriminated in a tenure decision, tenure is an appropriate Title VII remedy to provide 'make whole' relief, and courts should award it despite concerns about intruding into academic decisions, because Title VII's remedial p
• United States v. Payne
  805 F.2d 1062· D.C. Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the admission of firearms into evidence was proper to show intent to distribute a controlled substance, and the denial of a lesser included offense instruction was also correct.
• United States v. Kehm
  799 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-26 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of a videotape was proper, the prosecution's decisions were not selective, withheld impeachment evidence was not material, a deposition was admissible due to witness unavailability, and jury instructions were adequate
• United States v. Jarabek
  726 F.2d 889· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the tape recordings were admissible because the investigation was a joint federal-state effort and federal law governed admissibility, not the stricter state wiretap statute.
• United States v. Gering
  716 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the mail cover did not violate the defendant's First Amendment rights and that costs of prosecution were properly taxed. However, the restitution order was impermissible as it exceeded the amounts alleged in the indictment.
• United States v. Serlin
  707 F.2d 953· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntary and admissible, and that the admission of evidence of failure to file a 1978 return was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Morris
  700 F.2d 427· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 60×
  The court held that variances between the indictment dates and proof, evidence of other wrongs, a defendant's statement, and jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Boykin
  679 F.2d 1240· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-09 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's relationships with two women, nor in admitting certain hearsay testimony, and that prosecutorial remarks and jury selection were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. DeFILLIPO
  590 F.2d 1228· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 60×
  Defendants cannot complain about joint representation after being warned and electing to proceed.
• United States v. Fierson
  419 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1969-12-17 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a prior similar offense was proper to prove intent, and the district judge did not abuse discretion.
• United States v. Jamil
  707 F.2d 638· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding a tape recording under Rule 403 and that the recording did not violate Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1).
• United States v. Fosher
  568 F.2d 207· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-04 ·cited 59×
  The admission of a mug shot, even with masked identifying features, was an abuse of discretion because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the potential prejudice of implying a prior criminal record.
• United States v. Rocha
  916 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the denial of severance motions.
• United States v. Beltran
  761 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-24 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts and that the admission of defendants' statements was not reversible error, despite a delay in bringing them before a magistrate.
• Haskell v. Kaman Corp.
  743 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting certain prejudicial testimony and statistical evidence, requiring a new trial on the ADEA claim, but affirmed the denial of liquidated damages.
• United States v. Deil Otto Gustafson
  728 F.2d 1078· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other acts under Rule 404(b) and in denying a motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Hooton
  662 F.2d 628· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements, admitting live-witness testimony, admitting evidence of other acts, excluding evidence on typical collector activity, or giving an Allen charge.
• United States v. Gjon N. Nivica
  887 F.2d 1110· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 57×
  The court affirmed the disposition of the motion in limine issue, agreeing that precedent foreclosed a different approach. The court also concurred in the result regarding the right to testify, finding no reversible error.