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. Paul Lash (90-1449)
  937 F.2d 1077· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that defendants Lash and Tommasi effectively withdrew from the conspiracy more than six years prior to the indictment, thus barring prosecution on statute of limitations grounds.
• United States v. Seaborn R. Wicker
  933 F.2d 284· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to the defendant, the indictment defect was cured, prosecutorial comments were not reversible error, and there was no Brady/Giglio violation.
• United States v. Rubio-Villareal
  927 F.2d 1495· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support conspiracy convictions and that a jury instruction regarding knowledge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof, requiring reversal and a new trial for possession charges.
• United States v. Yeagin
  927 F.2d 798· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of the defendant's nine prior felony convictions was prejudicial error because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Rogers
  918 F.2d 207· D.C. Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of prior drug distribution and beeper possession was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict for drug distribution within a school zone.
• United States v. Solomon Bitton Simtob
  901 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit a tape recording potentially showing witness perjury and that the prosecutor improperly vouched for a witness's credibility, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Sappe
  898 F.2d 878· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that separate convictions for bank robbery and armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 merge, and the conviction for the lesser offense must be vacated. The court also held that the district court failed to follow proper procedure for an upward departure from the
• United States v. Westbrook
  896 F.2d 330· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior transactions, denying a mistrial, admitting identification testimony, refusing a proposed jury instruction, or denying a motion to sever. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convict
• United States v. Weddell
  890 F.2d 106· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony of prior bad acts, as it was relevant to intent and self-defense and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.
• United States v. Dotson
  871 F.2d 1318· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding that the jury instructions given were adequate and that the evidence supported the jury's findings.
• United States v. Bruce Zalman (87-6183)
  870 F.2d 1047· 6th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant waived any objection regarding the precise limits of his duty to disclose the sham nature of marriages because it was not properly raised below.
• United States v. Rodrequez
  859 F.2d 1321· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government's use of peremptory strikes was not discriminatory, joinder was proper, photographic identifications were not unduly suggestive, informant identities were not required to be disclosed, and other trial rulings were not abuses of discretion.
• United States v. Turoff
  853 F.2d 1037· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that mail fraud and tax fraud charges could be properly joined in a single indictment against multiple defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) because the schemes were part of a series of interconnected transactions and the proof of one was indispensable to understandi
• United States v. Pelletier
  845 F.2d 1126· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that coconspirator statements were properly admitted as hearsay exceptions and that the appellant's statements were admissible. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Potts
  840 F.2d 368· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), evidence of prior drug smuggling under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), or the defendant's prior written statements.
• United States v. Tate
  821 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a warrantless search of a vehicle abandoned on a public highway after a violent encounter is permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence of related violent acts is admissible if it explains the circumstances or proves an element of the charged offense
• Young v. Rabideau
  821 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony about prison rules and in admitting limited cross-examination regarding the plaintiff's prior disciplinary record.
• Cerro Gordo Charity v. Fireman's Fund Am. Life Ins. Co.
  819 F.2d 1471· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the transcript of a psychiatrist's prior testimony was admissible and that it was permissible to call a witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury in a civil case.
• Coast-To-Coast Stores, Inc. v. Womack-Bowers, Inc.
  818 F.2d 1398· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding prejudicial statements, evidence exclusion, denial of a new trial, or dismissal of the common law fraud claim.
• United States v. Reno Soundingsides
  820 F.2d 1232· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts testimony and the handling of lost exculpatory evidence constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Bramlet
  820 F.2d 851· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government met its burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the admission of evidence of prior uncharged offenses and expert testimony based on hospital staff observations was proper.
• Tyler v. White
  811 F.2d 1204· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while defense counsel's argument regarding plaintiffs' failure to call certain defendants as witnesses was improper, it did not constitute reversible error given the overall evidence and the nature of the error.
• United States v. Paul
  810 F.2d 774· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior drug dealings or the testimony of an absent coconspirator.
• United States v. Whiteside
  810 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of government exhibits and the denial of a continuance were not erroneous, and the jury instructions on willfulness were proper.
• United States v. Garot
  801 F.2d 1241· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the defendant's statements, admitting the government's exhibits, or in its cautionary instructions, and that the severance issue was not properly before the court.
• Wierstak v. Heffernan
  789 F.2d 968· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court did not err in excluding prior convictions, admitting expert testimony, denying motions for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in its findings on municipal liability.
• United States v. Tomasian
  784 F.2d 782· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of prior crimes was admissible and the exclusion of a proffered expert witness was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Bolt
  776 F.2d 1463· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in its rulings on multiplicity, discovery, evidence admission, or reopening the case, and that the mail fraud statute did not require proof of counterfeit foreign bank notes.
• United States v. Allen C. Lawson (84-3798)
  780 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-16 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, holding that the electronic surveillance was lawfully authorized and properly minimized, cross-examination was not improperly limited, telephone records were admissible, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, preindictment delay did n
• United States v. Arnold
  773 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the delay in seeking authorization for testimonial use of intercepted communications did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2517(5) and that the pre-1982 version of 18 U.S.C. § 1503's Omnibus Clause applied to witnesses.
• United States v. Mora
  768 F.2d 1197· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment when the defendant admitted the physical acts but denied knowledge of illegality, consistent with Tenth Circuit precedent.
• United States v. Franke Eugenio Martinez
  744 F.2d 76· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the destruction of evidence did not violate due process because the defendant failed to show its materiality, and affirmed the exclusion of other crimes evidence as within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Moosey
  735 F.2d 633· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of prior cocaine deliveries was admissible for the conspiracy count with a limiting instruction, and that coconspirator statements were properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
• United States v. Gaylon William Jackson
  714 F.2d 809· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for making false statements on invoices submitted for a federally funded project, and that the admission of 'bad acts' evidence and the refusal of a 'good faith' jury instruction were not erroneous.
• United States v. Wilford
  710 F.2d 439· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' actions constituted extortion under the Hobbs Act, that their felony and misdemeanor charges were not duplicative, and that various evidentiary rulings were not abuses of discretion.
• United States v. Johnson
  700 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a judge cannot instruct a jury that an essential element of a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as this usurps the jury's Sixth Amendment right to decide guilt or innocence.
• United States v. Madrid
  673 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that statements made during a competency examination are admissible on the issue of sanity when the defendant raises an insanity defense and consents to a subsequent examination on sanity by the same psychiatrist. The court also held that evidence of past crimes is
• United States v. D'Auria
  672 F.2d 1085· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's actions did not constitute a valid recantation under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d) because he never admitted his testimony was false or offered to retract it. Therefore, his conviction for making false declarations before a grand jury stands.
• United States v. Wesevich
  666 F.2d 984· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of admitting extraneous offense evidence and limiting cross-examination denied the defendant a fair trial, requiring reversal of his conviction.
• United States v. Harris
  661 F.2d 138· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior injuries was proper to show intent and absence of mistake or accident, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for fracturing the child's leg.
• United States v. Nunnally D. Brunson, Jr.
  657 F.2d 110· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that uncut sheets of counterfeit currency can be considered counterfeit if they bear sufficient likeness to genuine currency and cutting them is an inconsequential matter. The court also held that an aider and abettor can be convicted even if the principal is not c
• United States v. Elouise Colvin
  614 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 12×
  Evidence of prior injuries was properly admitted to prove malice aforethought for second-degree murder.
• United States v. Posey
  611 F.2d 1389· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 12×
  A defendant's statement is inadmissible as plea bargaining only if they had a subjective, reasonable expectation to negotiate a plea.
• United States v. Gibbons
  602 F.2d 1044· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge abused discretion by not inquiring into prospective jurors' specific neighborhoods of residence and that admitting evidence of subsequent cocaine possession was erroneous and harmful.
• United States v. Phillips
  599 F.2d 134· 6th Cir.· 1979-05-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that admitting testimony about the defendant's participation in other bank robberies was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was offered to prove criminal disposition rather than a specific exception like plan or identity, and its admissio
• United States v. Tempesta
  587 F.2d 931· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for filing false tax returns was supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial and post-trial rulings, including those concerning preindictment delay, admissibility of evidence, and jury instructions, did not constitute rev
• United States v. Stewart
  576 F.2d 50· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 12×
  A confession obtained without complete Miranda warnings, including the right to appointed counsel for indigents, is inadmissible in the government's case-in-chief, and its admission, along with evidence of prior crimes contained therein, cannot be considered harmless error when t
• United States v. Bradford
  571 F.2d 1351· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other similar transactions to prove intent, as they were closely connected in time and nature to the charged offenses.
• United States v. Uriarte
  575 F.2d 215· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of prior arrest evidence and the denial of severance were proper, and that jury instructions were not plainly erroneous.
• United States v. Tibbetts
  565 F.2d 867· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior unprosecuted bomb threat was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for identification purposes and, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error due to overwhelming evidence.