Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

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

• Amoros v. State
  531 So. 2d 1256· Fla.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 57×
  Reinaldo Amoros appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence in a case involving the shooting death of his former girlfriend's current boyfriend. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death sentence, finding the two aggravating ci
• The United States v. Beros
  833 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a sufficiently precise jury instruction on unanimity regarding the specific acts constituting the offenses, requiring vacation of convictions on those counts.
• United States v. Lindell
  881 F.2d 1313· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the joinder of defendants, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, or miscellaneous claims.
• Charlette A. Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co.
  817 F.2d 1452· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial.
• United States v. DE Peri
  778 F.2d 963· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, jury selection, or prosecutorial comments.
• Borden, Inc. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  772 F.2d 750· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a prior similar incident and in apportioning damages, but affirmed the decision to allow amendment of the complaint.
• United States v. Eventius T. Burton
  737 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 56×
  A defendant's good faith belief that wages are not taxable income, however objectively unreasonable, must be submitted to the jury to determine willfulness. However, excluding expert testimony on the general legal uncertainty of taxability was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Moreno
  649 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding the past marijuana dealings of the appellant's brothers.
• United States v. Frick
  588 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the admission of prejudicial testimony regarding a sexual relationship was harmless error for two defendants but required reversal for a third, and that jury instructions on escrow duties were adequate.
• United States v. Wilson
  578 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a partially unintelligible tape recording and its transcript, nor in admitting testimony about an extraneous drug transaction, as any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
  776 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the cases for trial and in admitting evidence regarding appellants' knowledge of asbestos risks, but ordered remittiturs for future medical expenses awarded by the jury.
• United States v. Duggan
  743 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was constitutional and properly applied, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence or in rejecting the defendants' proposed defenses.
• United States v. Hancho C. KIM
  595 F.2d 755· D.C. Cir.· 1979-03-12 ·cited 55×
  The court held that a telex from a foreign bank, offered to prove the defendant's financial resources, was inadmissible hearsay because it failed to meet the requirements of the business records exception and the residual exception. The court also held that the prosecutor's comme
• United States v. Bond
  847 F.2d 1233· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for CCE status, upholding joint trials, and allowing admission of evidence and denial of recusal motions.
• Margo Lynch v. Merrell-National Labs.
  830 F.2d 1190· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation was inadmissible due to a lack of scientific foundation, and therefore summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
• Jules R. Viterbo v. The DOW Chem. Co.
  826 F.2d 420· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-11 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a district court did not err in excluding expert testimony and granting summary judgment when the expert's opinion lacked sufficient reliability and foundation.
• United States v. Khan
  787 F.2d 28· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the superseding indictment adding charges after a mistrial and rejection of plea discussions did not create a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness, and that the evidence and expert testimony were properly admitted.
• Voutour v. Vitale
  761 F.2d 812· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the liability of Chief Forni and the Town of Saugus under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, precluding summary judgment.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. & Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
  727 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court correctly allowed a strict liability cause of action for asbestos exposure but erred in admitting evidence of the mere possibility of future cancer and in allowing punitive damages in a strict liability action.
• Whiteley v. OKC Corp.
  719 F.2d 1051· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-19 ·cited 54×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's financial condition was admissible because the defendant "opened the door" by introducing evidence of its liquidation and bankruptcy, and that evidence of a subsequent accident was relevant and admissible. The court affirmed the jur
• United States v. Birney
  686 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of embezzlement to prove motive for making false entries, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice from preindictment delay to warrant dismissal of the false entry coun
• United States v. Sindona
  636 F.2d 792· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-18 ·cited 54×
  The court held that there was no impermissible variance between the indictment and the proof, and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible error. Therefore, the conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Ekram Manafzadeh
  592 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-23 ·cited 54×
  The admission of evidence of subsequent crimes was improper because intent was not a disputed issue, and the evidence was not relevant to any other issue in the case. Therefore, the conviction is reversed.
• Rigby v. Beech Aircraft Co.
  548 F.2d 288· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that a product defect must render the airplane "unreasonably dangerous" for liability to attach, nor in excluding evidence related to 40-gallon fuel cells or certain exhibits concerning tests on other fuel ce
• Bendelow v. United States
  418 F.2d 42· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial judge either failed to recognize or reversibly exceeded the bounds of his discretion in allowing impeachment of the defendant by prior convictions for the same offense.
• Gregory v. State
  118 So. 3d 770· Fla.· 2013-06-27 ·cited 53×
  William A. Gregory was convicted of two first-degree murders in the August 2007 deaths of his ex-girlfriend Skyler Meekins and her new boyfriend Daniel Dyer, and was sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentences, finding sufficient evi
• United States v. Sellers
  906 F.2d 597· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that the defendants' convictions and sentences were proper.
• United States v. Walther
  867 F.2d 1334· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the government's reverse sting operation did not constitute outrageous conduct violating due process, and that various trial errors claimed by the appellants were either not errors or did not rise to the level of reversible error.
• McQUEENEY v. Wilmington Tr. Co.
  779 F.2d 916· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 53×
  The court held that evidence of subornation of perjury is relevant under Rule 401 and, absent substantial unfair prejudice, admissible under Rule 403, and that the standard for harmless error review in civil cases is the same as in criminal cases ('highly probable' the error did
• United States v. Bernardo Betancourt
  734 F.2d 750· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 53×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred by communicating with the jury without notifying counsel, this error was harmless and did not warrant overturning the convictions.
• Associated Radio Serv. Co. v. Page Airways, Inc.
  624 F.2d 1342· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the jury's findings of antitrust violations under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act were supported by sufficient evidence, including proof of injury to competition, and that the trial court's jury instructions were adequate.
• Melville v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  584 F.2d 1306· 3d Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 53×
  The court held that Pennsylvania's choice of law rules would extend its modern flexible conflicts methodology to contract actions, and under that analysis, Delaware law, not New York law, should govern the presumption against suicide in this insurance policy dispute.
• United States v. Gale Nace and Nathan J. Warren, Sr.
  561 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 53×
  The conviction should be reversed because the prosecution injected grossly inflammatory and prejudicial evidence near the end of the trial.
• United States v. Keys
  899 F.2d 983· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's gang membership to show witness bias due to fear, nor in rereading testimony, enhancing the sentence for obstruction of justice, or departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines based on
• United States v. Bonnett
  877 F.2d 1450· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that passing a series of worthless checks can constitute a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a)(1), and that the defendants' conduct in using these checks to artificially inflate account balances constituted a scheme to obtain property by false pretenses und
• United States v. Cruz
  797 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of cash and food stamps, expert testimony on food stamp use, co-conspirator statements, and cocaine vials, as these evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion and did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Joseph F. "Joey" Astling
  733 F.2d 1446· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial vindictiveness, continuances, marijuana classification, jury voir dire, severance, admission of extrinsic evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. McNEILL
  728 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 52×
  The court held that pretrial publicity from a related indictment did not presume prejudice or demonstrate actual prejudice, and that the admission of certain testimony and the government's elicitation of immunity orders were not erroneous.
• Durflinger v. Artiles
  727 F.2d 888· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting or excluding evidence, nor in his jury instructions, and affirmed the trial court's decision.
• United States v. Lynch
  699 F.2d 839· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 52×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the defendant's conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or restitution calculation.
• Vanskike v. ACF Indus.
  665 F.2d 188· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of strict liability against ACF and Union Pacific, and FELA liability against Frisco. However, the damages award was reversed due to improper exclusion of evidence regarding the plaintiff's motivation
• United States v. Jimenez-Diaz
  659 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in questioning a co-defendant about his guilty plea, denying a continuance, or admitting a post-arrest statement, and that the cumulative effect of alleged errors did not deny a fair trial.
• Lieberman v. Gant
  630 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding comparative and statistical evidence and that the denial of tenure was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
• Gagliardi v. Flint
  564 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction to hear pendent state law claims and that no reversible trial errors occurred.
• Fiacco v. City OF Rensselaer
  783 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 51×
  A municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a policy of deliberate indifference to its officers' use of excessive force, and evidence of unadjudicated third-party claims is admissible to prove such a policy.
• Kehm v. The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
  724 F.2d 613· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 51×
  The court held that evidence of a product's post-occurrence withdrawal from the market is admissible in a strict liability case, as Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence does not apply to strict liability claims.
• United States v. Wright
  667 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the black ledger was improperly seized under the plain view doctrine because its incriminating nature was not immediately apparent, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Kiendra
  663 F.2d 349· 1st Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 51×
  The court held that evidence of prior convictions involving dishonesty or false statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) must be admitted for impeachment purposes, without judicial discretion to exclude it based on prejudice, and that a confession made after a valid Mir
• United States v. Ricardo
  619 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that extraterritorial jurisdiction attaches for conspiracy if intended territorial effects are shown, even without an overt act in the U.S., and that evidence seized and admitted was lawful.
• United States v. Reyes Vargas
  583 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 51×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, specifically making unsupported allegations of prior drug trafficking and misstating the burden of proof, denied the defendant a fair trial.