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. Oswald Campbell
  774 F.2d 354· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the April 1st theft, and any prosecutorial misconduct was harmless error.
• Webb v. Blackburn
  773 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct regarding post-arrest silence and other crimes evidence were procedurally barred or harmless, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Boroni
  758 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a prior uncharged criminal scheme was unduly prejudicial and substantially swayed the jury's verdict, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Hans
  738 F.2d 88· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the district court's decision to allow the jury to see windbreakers not admitted into evidence was harmless error, and would affirm the conviction.
• Clinkscale v. United States
  729 F.2d 940· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish willfulness for filing false tax returns and that the admission of certain testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Turk
  722 F.2d 1439· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 10×
  The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not justify a complete failure to file a tax return, and such a claim is not validly exercised when based on the possibility of an audit. The conviction for willful failure to file is affirmed.
• United States v. Harris
  720 F.2d 1259· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's stern admonishment of defense counsel, while improper, did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial or effective assistance of counsel, and the denial of the motion to exclude prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Bowman
  720 F.2d 1103· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior assault conviction or in refusing to give jury instructions on unconsciousness and self-defense.
• United States v. Addie Hardrich
  707 F.2d 992· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-27 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Roglieri
  700 F.2d 883· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-15 ·cited 10×
  Evidence of customary practices is sufficient, standing alone, to establish mailing and non-receipt for theft from the mail cases.
• United States v. Johnson
  697 F.2d 735· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of prior act evidence was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in balancing probative value against prejudice. However, the collateral estoppel issue required further
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Carino
  631 F.2d 226· 3d Cir.· 1980-08-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the exclusion of evidence of the victim's prior manslaughter conviction to show the defendant's state of mind was an error, it was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Armand Mucci
  630 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen property, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony or denying motions for acquittal and a new trial.
• United States v. Thomas
  632 F.2d 837· 10th Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its conduct of the trial, including handling a juror-marshal conversation and admitting evidence of a defendant's threat, and that the judgments must be affirmed.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Scuito
  623 F.2d 869· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, nor did he abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a psychiatric examination of the complainant.
• United States v. Simmons
  663 F.2d 107· D.C. Cir.· 1979-08-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination regarding a co-defendant's plea agreement, in its jury instructions on aiding and abetting, or in admitting prior convictions to show predisposition and credibility, especially since the defendant in
• United States v. Augustin Jones
  570 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting evidence of 478 other prescriptions as proof of intent or knowledge, as it was unduly prejudicial and lacked substantial probative value.
• United States v. Earnest Velarde
  528 F.2d 387· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the statute protecting federal officers applies even when the officer is off-duty and does not require the assailant's knowledge of the officer's status.
• United States v. Perry
  14 F.4th 1253· 11th Cir.· 2021-09-29 ·cited 9×
  Eddie Lee Perry and Chad Ragin were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and related offenses based on evidence from wiretapped phone calls, drug seizures, and expert testimony interpreting drug-related coded language used in the intercepted communications. The Eleventh
• United States v. Cooper
  926 F.3d 718· 11th Cir.· 2019-06-10 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the jury instructions were accurate, and the sentencing enhancement was properly applied.
• United States v. Otto Pace
  981 F.2d 1123· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the use of ambiguous drug terms in the indictment and general verdict forms, combined with sentencing discrepancies, constituted plain error requiring resentencing or new trial for some counts, but affirmed one conviction outright.
• United States v. Helder C. Simas
  937 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing an entrapment instruction, that the jury instructions for mail fraud were adequate, and that the bribery counts were properly brought under 18 U.S.C. § 666 without requiring tracing of federal funds.
• United States v. Ayers
  924 F.2d 1468· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of subsequent acts to prove intent, admitting Gregory Ayers' tax returns, and refusing the proposed jury instruction. The court also found the search warrant was supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Enterline
  894 F.2d 287· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the FBI agent's testimony regarding a computer report of stolen vehicles was admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant based on information in the pre
• Morley v. Cohen
  888 F.2d 1006· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a settlement with a codefendant must reduce the judgment against the remaining defendant, and that attorneys' fees requests in RICO actions are not subject to the ten-day limit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
• United States v. Hermes
  847 F.2d 493· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a conspiracy to commit arson affecting interstate commerce and that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper.
• United States v. Davidoff
  845 F.2d 1151· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a bill of particulars because evidence of extortions at Pandair, Randy, and TAT was presented to prove the existence of a RICO enterprise, not as additional predicate acts.
• United States v. Zimeri-Safie
  585 F.2d 1318· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of 'other acts' (possession of a manual on deception and related notes) to prove knowledge and intent, nor in admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's alien status.
• United States v. Verdeza
  69 F.4th 780· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence of healthcare fraud and upholding the district court's evidentiary and sentencing rulings.
• United States v. Junior Jean Baptiste
  935 F.3d 1304· 11th Cir.· 2019-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even if hearsay testimony was improperly admitted, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence. The court also clarified that reliable hearsay can be used for sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Wilchcombe
  838 F.3d 1179· 11th Cir.· 2016-10-04 ·cited 8×
  Three defendants were convicted of maritime drug trafficking and conspiracy under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) after their fishing vessel was intercepted by the Coast Guard carrying approximately 895 kilograms of cocaine and marijuana. The Eleventh Circuit affirm
• United States v. Rodriguez-Garcia
  983 F.2d 1563· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained through consent searches, admitting recorded conversations, refusing certain jury instructions, or applying the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also found no reversible error r
• United States v. Maholias
  985 F.2d 869· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove Maholias was a member of a single conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and that the admission of certain testimony was not plain error or reversible error.
• United States v. Saffeels
  982 F.2d 1199· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Fourth Amendment violations, admissibility of prior bad acts evidence, and sentencing as a career offender were without merit.
• United States v. Easter
  981 F.2d 1549· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court should remand for a hearing on the defendant's claim that the government withheld a sentence reduction motion in retaliation for exercising his right to a jury trial.
• United States v. Fair
  979 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 8×
  A defendant may rely on their presentence report to establish inability to pay a fine, and a cost of incarceration fine cannot be imposed without an initial punitive fine.
• United States v. Humphreys
  982 F.2d 254· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to suppress evidence, sever counts, transfer venue, or for a new trial based on juror disqualification, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. DeShawn Lee Robinson
  978 F.2d 1554· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting gang affiliation evidence as substantive proof of guilt was improper, and that the prosecution breached a plea agreement with a defendant.
• United States v. Torres
  977 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts to prove intent and that the government met its burden of proof for the upward sentencing departure.
• United States v. Hartsfield
  976 F.2d 1349· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of gang membership and prior drug dealings, denying motions for mistrial, and utilizing mass jury selection, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Shetterly
  971 F.2d 67· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or sentencing.
• United States v. Gessa
  971 F.2d 1257· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's sentencing determination regarding the inclusion of the 2500 kilograms of cocaine was unclear and required remand for specific findings on the defendant's intent and capability. The conviction was affirmed.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Pinney
  967 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the admission of the sister's testimony about a prior alleged rape by the defendant was improper under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. The court found that while the testimony might have been admissible to show i
• United States v. Soria
  965 F.2d 436· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's home was lawful despite the officers' failure to strictly adhere to the knock-and-announce rule, and that the admission of certain witness statements and evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Agrell
  965 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial, applying the Sentencing Guidelines, denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, or including a 1970 conviction in the criminal history category.
• United States v. Mitcheal Edmonson
  962 F.2d 1535· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions lacked merit, except for the issue concerning the fine under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which the government conceded. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Logan
  949 F.2d 1370· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Logan and Stanley, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the application of legal standards.
• United States v. Kocher
  948 F.2d 483· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge argues that the jury instruction allowing the jury to infer intent to conspire to manufacture amphetamines from a single instance of personal cocaine use was erroneous and prejudicial.
• United States v. Riascos
  944 F.2d 442· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that any error in the jury's use of transcripts was harmless, the admission of co-conspirator testimony was not an abuse of discretion, and the sentence was calculated correctly.
• United States v. Stevenson
  942 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction for Gary Stevenson and that the evidentiary rulings and sentences for Gary Stevenson, Barry Stevenson, and Ronald Vesper were not abuses of discretion.