Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

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

• Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc.
  797 F.2d 1222· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the structure and organization of a computer program are protectible by copyright, not just the literal code, and that substantial similarity in structure can constitute infringement.
• United States v. Johns
  734 F.2d 657· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 47×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's argument regarding the absence of an alibi witness was improper, it did not constitute plain error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the convictions.
• State v. Page
  449 So. 2d 813· Fla.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 47×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that petit theft convictions are per se crimes of dishonesty admissible for impeachment under Florida's evidence code, rejecting the First District's narrow interpretation requiring proof of affirmative misstatement or misrepresentation. The Court r
• United States v. Bradshaw
  719 F.2d 907· 7th Cir.· 1983-10-19 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel by persisting in joint representation after being repeatedly advised of the risks.
• United States v. Rosa
  705 F.2d 1375· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a death threat, in its jury instructions on aiding and abetting, or in refusing a special cautionary instruction for a witness with a mental condition.
• United States v. Smith
  D.D.C.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the failure to suppress identifications was not ineffective assistance of counsel, but the trial court erred in not applying Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) to Gartrell's impeachment by prior conviction.
• United States v. Pettit
  903 F.2d 1336· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, finding the upward adjustment for role in the offense was improperly applied.
• United States v. D'Antoni
  874 F.2d 1214· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 46×
  The court noted that the five-year maximum penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 371 for conspiracy is inadequate when the underlying crime is a serious felony, suggesting Congress should revise the statute.
• United States v. Padilla
  869 F.2d 372· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to make its own findings on an issue material to sentence enhancement and that a statute authorizing supervised release had not taken effect at the time of the offense. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were v
• United States v. Dunn
  846 F.2d 761· D.C. Cir.· 1988-05-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that expert testimony describing a drug operation's modus operandi, without directly stating whether the defendant had the requisite mental state, does not violate Fed.R.Evid. 704(b).
• Real v. Hogan
  828 F.2d 58· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-11 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial, mistrial, or continuance, and properly admitted the simulated evidence.
• Johnson v. United States
  780 F.2d 902· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 46×
• United States v. Stewart
  770 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural errors in the sentencing process.
• United States v. Fahey
  769 F.2d 829· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of a potential conflict of interest with his counsel was knowing and intelligent, and that the search of an unpatented mining claim and seizure of soil samples did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that a coconspirator
• United States v. Borello
  766 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that admitting a government witness's cooperation agreement into evidence on direct examination, before the witness's credibility was attacked, was improper and not harmless error.
• United States v. Dorrell
  758 F.2d 427· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-17 ·cited 46×
  The court's majority opinion fails to distinguish between the necessity defense and civil disobedience, and improperly suggests punishment validates a defendant's sincerity.
• United States v. Hyman
  741 F.2d 906· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 46×
• United States v. O'Malley
  707 F.2d 1240· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for mail fraud and extortion, that cross-examination regarding unreported campaign contributions was proper impeachment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for severance.
• United States v. Margiotta
  662 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that certain jury instructions and evidentiary rulings made by the district court were not appealable under the Criminal Appeals Act, while others were appealable but affirmed on the merits.
• Yolanda and Terrence Ballou v. Henri Studios, Inc.
  656 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the results of a blood alcohol test based on credibility and prejudice concerns, and that chain of custody issues go to the weight, not admissibility, of evidence.
• United States v. Luis E. Guerrero, M.D.
  650 F.2d 728· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence concerning Hayla Carr's testimony was erroneous and prejudicial, requiring reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. McCLINTIC
  570 F.2d 685· 8th Cir.· 1978-01-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective, joinder of offenses was proper, lay witness testimony was admissible, cross-examination regarding prior misconduct was permissible, and the denial of a new trial motion based on undisclosed plea bargain terms was not an abuse
• United States v. Coades
  549 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the arrest was supported by probable cause, the show-up identification was not unduly suggestive, and the admission of a prior conviction was harmless error.
• White v. Westlund
  624 So. 2d 1148· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-09-15 ·cited 45×
  Jeffrey White appeals a jury verdict in favor of George and Delores Westlund arising from an automobile accident. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the judgment, rejecting White's challenges to the admission of expert testimony on future medical procedures, accident-rel
• Sil-Flo v. SFHC
  917 F.2d 1507· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 45×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in choice of law, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, discovery, or dismissal of the RICO claim.
• Puleio v. Vose
  830 F.2d 1197· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were procedurally barred or lacked constitutional merit, affirming the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Butler
  792 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the indictment was timely filed within the statute of limitations and that the admission of evidence and denial of severance motions were not erroneous.
• United States v. Aguirre
  716 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and that the trial court did not err in admitting prior similar acts testimony or in refusing to disclose the informant's whereabouts.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. CO Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc.
  680 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 45×
  The court held that Co Petro's Agency Agreements constituted futures contracts subject to the Commodity Exchange Act, and their sale off-exchange violated the Act, justifying the injunction and ancillary relief.
• Emeilia Cann and Charles Cann v. Ford Motor Co.
  658 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by phrasing special verdict questions conjunctively, creating an unfair obstacle for the jury, and that Federal Rule of Evidence 407 applies to strict products liability actions.
• United States v. Berkwitt
  619 F.2d 649· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-21 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act did not provide a dismissal sanction, the warrantless search of the van was justified by exigent circumstances, prior bad acts evidence was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to meet the $5,000 minimum for interstate transportation of
• United States v. Barnes
  586 F.2d 1052· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-22 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the limited use of impeachment evidence or prior offenses, and that the admission of a coconspirator's hearsay statement, though erroneous, did not substantially influence
• Joshea J. Gilliams v. State
  262 So. 3d 869· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-01-22 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed a conviction where the defendant argued that inadequate medical treatment was an intervening cause of death, breaking the causal chain. The court held that when a defendant inflicts a life-threatening wound, subsequent medical malpractice or suboptimal medical
• United States v. Diaz
  878 F.2d 608· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of prior events and expert testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• United States v. Anderson
  872 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the 'apparent authority' defense is not legally cognizable when it relies on a mistaken view of the law, and the exclusion of classified information was proper as it was irrelevant to the charges.
• United States v. Peterman
  841 F.2d 1474· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the wire fraud conviction but remanded for resentencing due to the lack of specific findings on disputed facts in the presentence report.
• United States v. Randy Lamont Patterson aka Randy Brown
  819 F.2d 1495· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, severance denials, or procedural errors. Joinder was proper, coconspirator testimony admissible, and prosecutorial misconduct, while present, was not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. MacHi
  811 F.2d 991· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a scheme to defraud a person by promising to reduce their sentence, even if the defendants never intended to fulfill the promise, constitutes obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 because the natural and probable consequence of such a scheme is to impe
• Morton A. Kier v. Commercial Union Ins. Cos.
  808 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 44×
  A reasonable jury could not conclude that the defendant violated the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA), and therefore the district court's order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict is affirmed.
• United States v. Hernandez
  780 F.2d 113· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 44×
  The admission of prior bad act evidence against Lopez-Leyva, to which he was not a party, was unduly prejudicial and violated Rule 404(b) and 403, requiring a new trial for him. Hernandez's conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Burke
  781 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a "standing alone" jury instruction, which suggests character evidence alone may create reasonable doubt, is misleading and should not be given. Prior precedent to the contrary is overruled.
• United States v. Esdaille
  769 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to present a voice exemplar demonstrating a heavy accent without subjecting himself to cross-examination, due to the exemplar's low probative value and potential for prejudice.
• Crimm v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  750 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that while one jury instruction error occurred, it was harmless, and other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• Soden v. Freightliner Corp.
  714 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding statistical and opinion evidence from Freightliner's expert due to lack of a proper predicate and in admitting evidence of prior lawsuits against Freightliner with a limiting instruction to show notice.
• United States v. Cochran
  697 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirators' statements, the variance between the indictment and proof, the jury's viewing of an inadmissible transcript, nondisclosure of certain materials, prosecutorial remarks, and the admission of photographs did not constitute revers
• United States v. Rony Mann
  590 F.2d 361· 1st Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the deposition of a key witness to be taken and admitted into evidence, and that the admission of 'other acts' evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
• United States v. Chiarella
  588 F.2d 1358· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant's conduct, trading on market information without disclosing it, did not constitute a violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because he owed no duty of disclosure to the sellers. The dissent argues that expanding § 10(b) to cover such conduct, especi
• United States v. Ruiz
  579 F.2d 670· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of police officers' prior suspensions for excessive force, excluding uniformed officers from the courtroom, and admitting the defendant's arrest report and grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Matlock
  558 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not violated, the search of his briefcase was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence of other crimes was properly admitted.
• United States v. Riggins
  539 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 44×
  The admission of an uncharged money order, relevant to rebutting the defendant's defense, was not an abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).