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. Goff
  847 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 40×
  The court clarified its prior opinion, correcting misleading language regarding double jeopardy vacaturs for certain counts of conspiracy to import and possess.
• United States v. Paris
  827 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court should have excluded the out-of-court statements unless the government granted use immunity to the declarant, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  799 F.2d 649· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government's failure to provide discovery of a defendant's wallet contents violated Rule 16, and this violation was not harmless error, requiring reversal of that defendant's conviction.
• Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
  782 F.2d 1156· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the trial court's rulings, finding no error in evidentiary exclusions, jury instructions, or directed verdicts based on insufficient evidence of causation.
• United States v. Gomez
  776 F.2d 542· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 40×
  The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of Antonio Reyes Espinoza for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting the substantive offense.
• United States v. Davis
  772 F.2d 1339· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony regarding compulsive gambling as an insanity defense to charges of forgery and conversion, as the testimony was either unqualified, irrelevant, or lacked sufficient scientific accept
• United States v. O'Connor
  737 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government's conduct was not outrageous, there was sufficient evidence of possession, and evidentiary rulings were not reversible error. The convictions are affirmed.
• Stathos v. Bowden
  728 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damage award, finding no reversible error in the exclusion of evidence, jury instructions, or the award of attorney's fees, and amended the judgment for clarity.
• United States v. Schronce
  727 F.2d 91· 4th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 40×
  The court concurred with the magistrate's determination that seized guns should not be suppressed, finding the error, if any, harmless.
• United States v. Valdez
  722 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of a law enforcement officer's post-hypnotic identification testimony was improper and prejudicial, especially when the identification was of a suspect known to the witness and was uncorroborated.
• United States v. Hyson
  721 F.2d 856· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-23 ·cited 40×
  There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict against Gomes for his involvement in the drug conspiracy.
• United States v. Herb Neal
  718 F.2d 1505· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove mail fraud, the admission of certain evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of a change of venue was proper.
• Grady E. Shows v. The M/V RED Eagle
  695 F.2d 114· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 40×
  The admission of a plaintiff's ten-year-old armed robbery conviction and details of his imprisonment was reversible error because it carried little probative value but great prejudice.
• United States v. Myles E. Billups, Sr.
  692 F.2d 320· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-15 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the jury's verdict, evidentiary rulings, or the trial judge's conduct.
• Lindsay v. Ortho Pharm. Corp.
  637 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of post-accident labeling changes and the jury charge on contributory negligence constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial.
• Luda Foster v. Ford Motor Co.
  621 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-15 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury instructions on strict liability were sufficient and that the exclusion of evidence regarding a post-manufacture design change and deposition testimony was proper.
• United States v. Klauber
  611 F.2d 512· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to compel the government to grant use immunity to a defense witness, nor could the trial court impose sanctions for the government's refusal to do so, absent unfair government conduct.
• United States v. Derring
  592 F.2d 1003· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 40×
• United States v. Moss
  544 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of certain hearsay statements was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or in appointing experts.
• Alva B. Harper v. United States
  239 F.2d 945· D.C. Cir.· 1956-11-21 ·cited 40×
• United States v. Jules Huppert
  917 F.2d 507· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a principal to an offense cannot be sentenced as an accessory after the fact under the sentencing guidelines' cross-reference provision when the conduct was aimed at self-protection. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence.
• United States v. Manner
  887 F.2d 317· D.C. Cir.· 1989-10-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Leeper's later drug sale without an on-record balancing of its probative value against its prejudicial effect, remanding for this determination. The court affirmed the denial of Manner's motion to sever and his mo
• United States v. Manganellis
  864 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the prior bad acts evidence was improperly admitted because 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is not a specific intent crime and the defendant did not place intent in issue. However, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Rory Allen Meeks
  857 F.2d 1201· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-23 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator testimony, denying a motion for directed verdict due to insufficient evidence, or refusing to permit a witness to testify.
• Rudolph v. Campbell, Jr.
  831 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 39×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding that any errors in admitting evidence or instructing the jury were not material.
• Riordan v. Kempiners
  831 F.2d 690· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court improperly excluded probative evidence on the plaintiff's Section 1983 claim, requiring reversal and remand. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Equal Pay Act claim based on the presented facts but remanded for reconsideration due to evi
• United States v. Hillsberg
  812 F.2d 328· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding expert testimony on the defendant's capacity to conform his conduct to the law, nor in admitting evidence of prior gun use, nor in denying a recusal motion or a request for new counsel.
• United States v. Kail
  804 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, the evidence seized was admissible, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for mail fraud.
• United States v. Steffen
  641 F.2d 591· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 39×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that there was no Brady violation as the defendant had prior knowledge and received the relevant reports before trial, and that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence or in its sufficiency of evidence findings.
• United States v. Curtis
  568 F.2d 643· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-23 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant's prior statement regarding his intentions and that the defendant's statements were properly admitted despite not being preceded by Miranda warnings at the time they were made.
• United States v. Glecier
  923 F.2d 496· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficiently specific to satisfy constitutional and federal rule requirements for a RICO conspiracy charge, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Chaidez
  919 F.2d 1193· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 38×
  The detention of Ms. Silva amounted to a de facto arrest requiring probable cause, which the police lacked.
• United States v. Harris
  903 F.2d 770· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-16 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the conviction, forfeiture, and sentence, finding no error in the Travel Act violation evidence, search warrant validity, expert testimony, admission of evidence, or sentencing.
• Sims v. Mulcahy
  902 F.2d 524· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings and that jury instructions adequately covered the plaintiff's claims.
• Fleming v. Cnty. OF Kane
  898 F.2d 553· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence regarding the propriety of the Orchard Road project, and affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, but modified the damages award for lost wages.
• United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc.
  881 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator statements and evidence of various bid-rigging projects, nor in its jury instructions regarding a single conspiracy.
• Schrand v. Fed. Pac. Elec. Co.
  851 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting testimony from former employees about their terminations, as it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and that the jury instruction on willfulness was improper.
• United States v. Ford
  840 F.2d 460· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of impending audits and cash discrepancies, nor in considering the defendant's truthfulness and lack of remorse during sentencing.
• Davis v. Lane
  814 F.2d 397· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred by merging jury instructions for federal and state law claims and by directing a verdict on the due process claim, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Hoffman
  806 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's religious affiliation and political views was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, and that the letter alone did not constitute a 'true threat' under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a).
• Rascon v. Hardiman
  803 F.2d 269· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the jury's verdict against Director Hardiman could not stand due to insufficient opportunity for defense and unclear jury instructions, requiring a new trial. The court also found the jury instructions regarding Officer Stein's duty to intervene were inadequat
• United States v. Allen
  798 F.2d 985· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the production of FBI reports without an in camera inspection, as defense counsel laid a sufficient foundation to suggest the reports might constitute Jencks Act statements.
• United States v. Peco
  784 F.2d 798· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the prosecutor's closing argument remarks were improper and prejudiced the defendants' trial, warranting reversal.
• United States v. Local 560 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  780 F.2d 267· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting newspaper articles and biased survey testimony, as insufficient foundations were laid to prove readership and representative opinion, respectively.
• Hewitt v. City OF Truth OR Consequences
  758 F.2d 1375· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that ordinary negligence can support a § 1983 suit, but the facts presented could also support a finding of gross negligence or wanton conduct.
• Shipp v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  750 F.2d 418· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of defective roof design and producing cause, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings regarding demonstrative evidence.
• United States v. Oxman
  740 F.2d 1298· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority misapplied the materiality standard from Agurs and failed to give adequate weight to the trial court's findings, thus disagreeing with the decision to grant a new trial.
• United States v. Smith
  736 F.2d 1103· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 38×
  The trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding expert testimony regarding eyewitness reliability.
• United States v. Siegel
  717 F.2d 9· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support wire fraud convictions based on the misappropriation of unrecorded cash sales proceeds for self-enrichment and bribery. However, the court reversed Abrams' conviction for obstruction of justice due to insufficient evide
• United States v. McDOWELL
  705 F.2d 426· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant's objective acts were sufficiently corroborative of criminal intent to sustain a conviction for attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and that evidence of a prior drug transaction was admissible.