Federal Rule Of Evidence 404(B)

1,318 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 7 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Orange Jell Beechum
  582 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 729×
  The dissent argues the majority misinterpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by broadly allowing evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, effectively overruling prior precedent ('Broadway') without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Myers
  550 F.2d 1036· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 245×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error by refusing to strike the testimony of alibi rebuttal witnesses whose identities were not disclosed prior to trial, and by admitting evidence of a prior bank robbery for identification purposes.
• United States v. Shackleford
  738 F.2d 776· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 182×
  The court held that admitting testimony of prior similar misconduct was an abuse of discretion and not harmless error, requiring reversal of the extortion conviction. The court affirmed the conviction for possession of unregistered explosives.
• United States v. Milan Bagaric
  706 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 176×
  The court held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) applies to enterprises with mixed political and economic motives, as long as there is a pattern of racketeering activity and an enterprise, and the conduct implicates RICO's remedial purposes.
• United States v. McPARTLIN
  595 F.2d 1321· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-26 ·cited 172×
  The court held that the admission of certain testimony and grand jury statements was proper, and that the evidence against defendant Bull was sufficient to sustain his conviction.
• United States v. Hearst
  563 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-02 ·cited 171×
  The court held that admitting evidence of subsequent crimes was proper and that the defendant waived her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by testifying, allowing cross-examination on related matters.
• United States v. Feldman
  788 F.2d 544· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 161×
  The court held that sua sponte dismissals restart the Speedy Trial Act clock, the warrantless search of the car was a lawful inventory search, and the defendant's other claims of error were either harmless or without merit.
• Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
  797 F.2d 1417· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 160×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of employment discrimination based on racial harassment and retaliatory discharge, and that the damage awards were not excessive.
• United States v. Cole
  755 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 156×·via Rule 404(b)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana and attempted importation, and that various procedural challenges raised by the appellants were without merit.
• United States v. Scholle
  553 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 142×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because substantial independent evidence showed a likelihood of illicit association, and that the admission of prior consistent statements and evidence of prior bad acts was permissible under the Federal Ru
• United States v. West
  670 F.2d 675· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 136×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, dismissing the indictment, or in most evidentiary rulings, and that any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Provenzano
  620 F.2d 985· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 132×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the RICO charges, that the association constituted a RICO enterprise, and that various alleged trial errors, including the admission of certain testimony and juror misconduct, did not warran
• United States v. Calvert
  523 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-25 ·cited 130×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy, finding no merit in his challenges to the prosecution's authority, publicity, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Long
  574 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 129×
  The admission of evidence of other crimes, even if potentially prejudicial, was not reversible error because the objection was not specific and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• United States v. Nolan
  551 F.2d 266· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-22 ·cited 127×
  The court held that evidence of a prior foreign conviction is admissible to prove intent, knowledge, motive, common plan, or identity, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such evidence or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Griffin
  818 F.2d 97· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 124×
  The court held that most of the defendant's claims were procedurally defaulted and not reviewable as plain error, and the remaining evidentiary rulings were either properly admitted or not preserved for appeal.
• Bennie Lenard v. Robert Argento & Joseph Sansone
  699 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 124×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict against the Village of Melrose Park for failure to train or supervise its officers, and reversed the conspiracy to obstruct justice conviction due to lack of an overt act. However, it affirmed the j
• United States v. Masters
  622 F.2d 83· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-22 ·cited 114×
  The court held that statements made during negotiations for firearm sales, including discussions of other sales and the defendant's supply, were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to complete the story of the crime and establish the defendant's status as a dealer.
• United States v. Killian
  639 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 111×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, the scope of the conspiracy, and procedural matters.
• United States v. Bosch
  584 F.2d 1113· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the admission of prior convictions into evidence, due to counsel's ineffective assistance and the court's erroneous instructions, constituted reversible error. The court also affirmed that the 'reasonably competent assistance' standard is the appropriate measu
• United States v. Mohammad Reza Mehrmanesh
  689 F.2d 822· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act sanctions for arrest-to-indictment delay do not apply because the defendant was arrested before the effective date of the sanctions, and that the admission of certain prior bad acts evidence was either admissible or harmless error.
• United States v. Herman
  589 F.2d 1191· 3d Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 108×
  A federal court can review a United States Attorney's discretionary refusal to seek immunity for a defense witness for abuse of discretion, and can order a judgment of acquittal if discretion is improperly exercised.
• United States v. McDONALD
  576 F.2d 1350· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain McDonald's convictions for mail fraud and interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained property, reversing his conviction. The convictions of the other appellants were affirmed.
• United States v. Montes-Cardenas
  746 F.2d 771· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the joinder of drug and firearms counts was proper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance or continuance motions.
• United States v. Wellman
  830 F.2d 1453· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the pre-indictment delay did not violate due process, statements made to the FBI and USA were admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the mail fraud conviction.
• United States v. Murray
  618 F.2d 892· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the jury selection was proper, evidentiary rulings were correct, the government was not required to prove non-registration, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Barrett
  539 F.2d 244· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 104×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's knowledge of alarm systems was admissible to prove identity, and that a statement against interest offered to exculpate the accused must be assessed for trustworthiness with corroborating circumstances.
• United States v. Beasley
  809 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 103×
  The court held that the admission of extensive evidence of prior bad acts to show intent was improper because the district court failed to properly exercise its discretion by balancing probative value against prejudicial effect, and this error was not harmless for the counts rela
• United States v. Peskin
  527 F.2d 71· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 103×
  The court affirmed Peskin's convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the federal jurisdictional elements of the Travel Act and that his constitutional rights were not violated by the IRS audits.
• United States v. Covelli
  738 F.2d 847· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the arrest of Robert Covelli was based on probable cause, and the admission of certain evidence, including details of the murder and prior weapon possession, was not an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed Covelli's convictions.
• Eaves v. Penn
  587 F.2d 453· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-21 ·cited 102×
  The court held that Ralph W. Penn, by virtue of his actions in recommending, designing, and implementing the amendment of a profit-sharing plan to an employee stock ownership plan, acted as a fiduciary under ERISA and violated his duties of loyalty and prudence. The court also af
• Cullen v. Margiotta
  811 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 100×
  The court held that the tolling principle in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah should not apply to toll the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' section 1983 and RICO claims because the state court action did not provide sufficient notice of the federal claims.
• United States v. Hinton
  543 F.2d 1002· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 99×
  The court held that using the same grand jury that heard a witness's immunized testimony to indict that witness violates the Fifth Amendment and due process, requiring dismissal of the indictment.
• United States v. Cooper
  733 F.2d 1360· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motions to suppress evidence, finding the stop was a justified investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion and that any subsequent detention or questioning was consensual.
• DOE v. NEW York City Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  649 F.2d 134· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 98×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court's jury charge was proper when viewed as a whole and that other alleged errors do not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Hooshang Hooshmand
  931 F.2d 725· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-16 ·cited 97×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the mail fraud convictions were consistent with McNally, the definition of consultation was not unconstitutionally vague as applied, the evidence was sufficient, jury instructions were proper, the indictment was adequate, the searc
• United States v. Ford
  632 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-26 ·cited 97×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to affirm convictions for embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 664 related to a deferred compensation plan and a pension credit scheme, but reversed convictions for two trustees due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent. Conspirac
• United States v. Norton
  867 F.2d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that various evidentiary and prosecutorial rulings were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Graham Lee Kendall
  766 F.2d 1426· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 96×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported Kendall's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and for violating the Travel Act, and that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper.
• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Hewes
  729 F.2d 1302· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a RICO enterprise and that coconspirator hearsay statements were admissible. However, it reversed convictions for two counts of mail fraud against Caldwell and Langford.
• United States v. Ramsey
  785 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-28 ·cited 94×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• United States v. Rubio
  727 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the majority erred in reversing convictions based on the application of rigid legal propositions regarding probable cause for search warrants in RICO cases.
• United States v. Williford
  764 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 93×
  The court held that evidence of a cocaine negotiation was admissible as inextricably intertwined with the charged marijuana conspiracy, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to import marijuana.
• United States v. Lippner
  676 F.2d 456· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 93×
  The court held that a prior conviction pending appeal is not considered 'final' for the purpose of imposing enhanced sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
• United States v. Augustus Charles Bobo
  586 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 92×
  A defendant's consent to a mistrial, given through counsel, bars a subsequent double jeopardy claim, even if the mistrial was declared due to defense counsel's error and the defendant did not personally waive the right on the record.
• United States v. Splain
  545 F.2d 1131· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 92×
  The court held that a prosecutor's improper comments during closing argument were not reversible error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the comments did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Acosta-Cazares
  878 F.2d 945· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 91×
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior bad acts evidence, properly denied the motion for acquittal on the firearm charge, and correctly applied the sentencing guidelines for obstruction of justice.
• United States v. Diggs
  649 F.2d 731· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-29 ·cited 91×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that evidence seized from an abandoned motel room was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Liefer
  778 F.2d 1236· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 90×
  The court held that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to prove specific intent, an essential element of the crime, even if the defendant denies committing the act itself. The court also held that prosecutorial misconduct and the denial of a lesser