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. Rupert Gordon
  987 F.2d 902· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-04
  The dissenting judge believes the other act evidence was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and not unfairly prejudicial under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
• Manna PRO P'rs, L.P. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  986 F.2d 1346· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-01
  The court held that Manna Pro committed unfair labor practices by making unlawful statements to job applicants and employees, and by refusing to bargain with the union without a good faith doubt of its majority status. The court also upheld the exclusion of evidence related to Ma
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Archibald
  987 F.2d 180· 3d Cir.· 1993-03-01
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior sexual conduct was improper under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, and that hearsay testimony was improperly admitted on redirect examination, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Beauchamp
  986 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-16
  The court held that post-offense conduct, such as misleading investigators with a false story, cannot be used to justify a sentencing enhancement for 'more than minimal planning' under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2) if it does not involve pre-offense planning.
• United States v. McLAMB
  985 F.2d 1284· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-10
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the structuring and money laundering charges, the jury instructions were not plainly erroneous, and the statute was constitutional as applied.
• Zdenka Chnapkova v. Kong S. KOH, M.D.
  985 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1993-02-03
  The court held that the exclusion of hospital records and evidence of failure to file tax returns was prejudicially erroneous, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Dent
  984 F.2d 1453· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that grand jury testimony, even if trustworthy, cannot be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 804(b)(5)) if it is specifically covered by another exception (Rule 804(b)(1)) and fails to meet that exception's requirements.
• Hemphill v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  982 F.2d 572· D.C. Cir.· 1993-01-15
• Sumpter v. State
  612 So. 2d 635· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-01-13
  Tommy Sumpter was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence revealing the nature of his prior felony conviction (which was identical to the charged o
• United States v. Schenk
  983 F.2d 876· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-08
  The court held that the search complied with the 'knock and announce' statute, the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing, the cross-examination and admission of prior LSD sales were proper, and the sentencing adjustments were correct.
• United States v. Spencer
  981 F.2d 1083· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-16
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of another individual's arrest and gun possession, nor did it err in denying the motion to suppress or in its comments to the jury.
• United States v. Wood
  982 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-11
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant's requested jury instructions or in admitting rebuttal testimony, and affirmed the conviction.
• Pearlie Mae Turner v. White
  980 F.2d 1180· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02
  The court held that the trial court's erroneous jury instruction on 'deliberate indifference' did not constitute plain error, and the admission of evidence regarding alcohol consumption was not an abuse of discretion.
• Orth v. Emerson Elec. Co.
  980 F.2d 632· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-24
  The court held that the expert witness's testimony was properly admitted as it was based on known facts and experience, providing sufficient evidence for the jury's verdict, and that the jury instruction regarding a prior settlement was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Marion
  977 F.2d 1284· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-22
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior failure to appear, but erred in concluding the Sentencing Guidelines were inapplicable.
• United States v. Anderson
  976 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-21
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting extrinsic evidence of prior fires under Rule 404(b) after conducting the required Beechum analysis.
• Gracia v. LEE
  976 F.2d 1344· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-06
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding excerpts from a discovery deposition.
• Hastings v. Boston Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  975 F.2d 506· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-15
• Medrano v. City OF LOS Angeles
  973 F.2d 1499· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-08
  The court held that the erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge to an alternate juror who later sat on the jury is reversible error, and that allowing impeachment of witnesses by certain misdemeanor convictions is also an error.
• Miller v. State
  605 So. 2d 492· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-09-01
  The appellate court affirmed the conviction for second-degree murder, finding that the trial court did not err in its determination that the state's peremptory challenges to three black jurors were race-neutral.
• United States v. Gaumer
  972 F.2d 723· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-19
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding documentary evidence offered by the defendant.
• United States v. Johnson
  970 F.2d 907· D.C. Cir.· 1992-07-31
  The court held that the district court had discretion to exclude alibi witnesses for untimely disclosure but remanded for an explicit explanation of the reasoning. It rejected other arguments regarding evidence of prior crimes and sentencing.
• O'Banion v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & the Celotex Corp.
  968 F.2d 1011· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-30
  The court held that the exclusion of cancer evidence was proper without a showing of reasonable medical probability, and while admitting former testimony without a finding of unavailability was an abuse of discretion, it was not prejudicial. The state of the art jury instruction
• United States v. Misle BUS & Equip. Co.
  967 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-26
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts for conspiracy to suppress competition, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or sentencing.
• United States v. Hovig Marearian
  967 F.2d 1098· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-24
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting rebuttal testimony, nor in failing to appoint an interpreter sua sponte, and that the sentencing issues raised were without merit.
• Yarbrough v. Sturm
  964 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-15
  The court held that a jury verdict stemming from a compromise on damages taints the liability finding, entitling the complaining party to a new trial on all issues.
• United States v. Turner
  966 F.2d 440· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-09
  The court held that while the government improperly referred to the defendant's post-Miranda silence, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Lashmett
  965 F.2d 179· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-22
  The court held that the exclusion of extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements and opinion testimony regarding character was harmless error, but vacated the restitution order due to plain error for failing to consider the defendant's ability to pay.
• Fernandez v. Leonard
  963 F.2d 459· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-29
  The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding fraud on the court, autopsy photographs, or the admission of evidence concerning prior convictions and weapons, and that the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
• United States v. Burdett
  962 F.2d 228· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-29
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination regarding other tax evasion trials was relevant to the defendant's good-faith defense and that any error was harmless. The court also found that other claims were either meritless or not preserved.
• Bizzle v. McKesson Corp.
  961 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-07
  The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the exclusion of recall evidence was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and that the exclusion of untimely expert testimony was within the district court's discretion.
• Morarji Desai v. Seymour Hersh
  954 F.2d 1408· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-28
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to preserve his argument on appeal regarding the district court's evidentiary ruling on the reporter's privilege because he did not make a specific objection at trial.
• United States v. Woodfork
  955 F.2d 518· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-27
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to approach the jury box to display a gold front tooth.
• United States v. Gaylord James Miguel
  952 F.2d 285· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-20
  The court held that the Miranda warnings were adequate and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Gear Petroleum, Inc.
  948 F.2d 1542· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-13
  The court held that letters sent during the EEOC's conciliation process under the ADEA are inadmissible to prove liability or for impeachment purposes, as they are considered part of compromise negotiations.
• United States v. Soghanalian
  777 F. Supp. 17· S.D. Fla.· 1991-11-04
  The court held that the defendant's statement to a witness was inadmissible hearsay, as it was a statement of past memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered or believed, and did not fall under the state of mind exception.
• United States v. Driver
  945 F.2d 1410· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-01
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated due to excludable delays, inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal, the offense occurred in Indian country conferring jurisdiction, and the exclusion of evidence was proper.
• Turley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  944 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-04
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence of prior insurance fraud, which was relevant to intent and collusion, and that a new trial is required.
• United States v. Jeffrey Irwin Bakke (90-1978)
  942 F.2d 977· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-23
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning a defendant's subsequent arrest and drug-related activities was prejudicial error under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was not relevant to the charged conspiracy. However, the court affirmed the convictions of o
• In re Amerifirst Securities Litigation
  118 F.R.D. 597· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-08
  The court granted class certification, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) were met, despite arguments regarding individual reliance and the class period.
• United States v. Martinez
  939 F.2d 412· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-01
  The court held that the defendant waived arguments regarding limiting instructions for transcripts and minimal participation reduction, and that the admission of background hearsay testimony and the prosecutor's closing argument reference were not improper or plain error.
• United States v. Stormer
  938 F.2d 759· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-29
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting police officers' lay opinion testimony identifying the defendant in surveillance photographs, nor in denying the motion to exclude such testimony under Rule 403.
• United States v. Henson
  939 F.2d 584· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-19
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for arson and that evidence of prior threats was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show motive.
• Tatman v. Collins
  938 F.2d 509· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-09
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony regarding proximate causation, as it would have been unfairly prejudicial and lacked sufficient evidentiary support.
• Jess P. Bingman v. Natkin & Co.
  937 F.2d 553· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-28
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of subsequent terminations or in ordering reinstatement over front pay.
• United States v. Chol Ku Kang
  934 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-13
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements used to prove predisposition and the admission of flight evidence were erroneous and not harmless.
• Nor-West Cable Commc'ns P'ship v. City OF ST. Paul
  924 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-25
  The court held that Nor-West lacked standing to sue because it was not willing or able to build a competitive cable system, and therefore was unlikely to benefit from a second franchise. The court also held that Nor-West could not recover damages for expenditures made in pursuit
• United States v. Gatto
  924 F.2d 491· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-23
  The court held that the district court erred in suppressing eyewitness testimony, finding it sufficiently reliable despite potential suggestiveness in police procedures and hypnosis.
• Berkovich v. Winslow Hicks
  922 F.2d 1018· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-04
• United States v. Nicely
  922 F.2d 850· D.C. Cir.· 1991-01-04
  The court held that the two conspiracies charged in the indictment were misjoined, causing prejudice to the defendants, and therefore reversed the convictions.