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. Benefield
  942 F.2d 60· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence and the defendant's pro se representation were proper, but the amended sentence increasing the term of imprisonment was illegal.
• United States v. McMAHON
  938 F.2d 1501· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of access to grand jury testimony was harmless error, and that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's financial condition and the contents of a note was proper.
• United States v. Bayless
  940 F.2d 300· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance, no jurisdictional defect, and no error in admitting evidence.
• United States v. Crook
  936 F.2d 1012· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a Franks hearing and in admitting the videotape of a prior drug transaction.
• United States v. Bradshaw
  935 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to determine if the defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent, and remanded for this determination.
• United States v. Hargrove
  929 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence surrounding the defendant's arrest was admissible and that the admission of a witness's testimony in violation of a sequestration order was not an abuse of discretion, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Khalil Muhammad
  928 F.2d 1461· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of the shooting incident and a bullet, or admitting business records for a beeper rental.
• United States v. Santagata
  924 F.2d 391· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence of telephone orders, though not specifically charged counts, was independently admissible as direct proof of the wire fraud scheme, rendering the Rule 404(b) admission and cautionary instruction arguments moot.
• United States v. Sacco
  923 F.2d 970· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Burk
  912 F.2d 225· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the prosecutor's closing argument did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Chaverra-Cardona
  879 F.2d 1551· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning the underlying drug case was not unduly prejudicial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and solicitation to murder.
• United States v. Gometz
  879 F.2d 256· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defective zip gun can constitute a 'dangerous weapon' under 18 U.S.C. § 111 and an 'object designed or intended to be used as a weapon' under 18 U.S.C. § 1791, and that the erroneous admission of prior bad acts evidence was harmless.
• Rankin v. Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. I-3
  876 F.2d 838· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an Oklahoma statute requiring tenured teachers to pay half the cost of a due process hearing is facially unconstitutional as it imposes an impermissible burden on the right to due process, and that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of protected speec
• United States v. Jerkins
  871 F.2d 598· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the defendant attorney's conviction on all seven counts, finding sufficient evidence and proper admission of evidence.
• United States v. Portac, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants, the charges were properly joined, and no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Blankenship
  870 F.2d 326· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to produce grand jury testimony, admitting evidence of prior convictions and bad acts, denying a motion for acquittal based on jurisdiction, or in its jury instructions regarding the authorship requirement of 18 U.S.C. §
• United States v. Fortenberry
  860 F.2d 628· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic offenses evidence created undue prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value, requiring reversal of the denial of a new trial.
• United States v. Petary
  857 F.2d 458· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress Petary's statements, nor did it abuse its discretion in sentencing Petary or admitting evidence against Six. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
• United States v. Evans
  848 F.2d 1352· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of an additional peremptory challenge was harmless error, evidence related to an illegally seized firearm was admissible under inevitable discovery/independent source exceptions, and ammunition purchase counts were not multiplicitous with firearm pu
• United States v. Masters
  840 F.2d 587· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, refusing to rule on motions in limine, or admitting videotape evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Heath v. Cast
  813 F.2d 254· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in seating an alternate juror by lot, the error was harmless. It also held that the state court's suppression ruling did not have preclusive effect and that the evidentiary rulings were not abuses of discretion.
• Monger v. The Cessna Aircraft Co.
  812 F.2d 402· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the presumption of due care, nor in its evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Harbour
  809 F.2d 384· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior misconduct to prove intent and in allowing cross-examination on related events, and that the defendants were properly sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 641.
• Maude Lanham v. Whitfield
  805 F.2d 970· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial, excluding evidence, limiting cross-examination, directing a verdict, or denying in forma pauperis status.
• The United States v. Cummings
  798 F.2d 413· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instruction on property valuation was proper, the government proved sufficient value, the admission of a subsequent conviction was permissible to show knowledge, and the limiting instruction was adequate.
• United States v. Davis
  792 F.2d 1299· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of error regarding witness testimony, improper evidence admission, prosecutorial misconduct, and the failure to hold a Miranda hearing were without merit.
• United States v. White
  788 F.2d 390· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's petition for rehearing should be denied because no substantial error affecting the outcome of the trial was committed.
• United States v. Whaley
  786 F.2d 1229· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the materiality of false statements in a bank fraud prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 is a question of law for the court, and that evidence of subsequent fraudulent transactions is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) if relevant to intent, knowle
• United States v. LEE
  782 F.2d 133· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence presented, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Bedros Kalaydjian
  784 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that cross-examination of government witnesses regarding their reasons for choosing to affirm rather than swear on the Koran was properly precluded by Federal Rule of Evidence 610, as such inquiry would delve into religious beliefs and potentially prejudice the jur
• United States v. Mascio
  774 F.2d 219· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of mail fraud against both defendants, and that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper.
• United States v. Jamiel Alexander Chagra
  754 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses was proper and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions, nor in admitting electronically intercepted conversations.
• United States v. Gray
  730 F.2d 733· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prosecutor's good-faith opening statement remark, even if later excluded, does not constitute reversible error if made with a reasonable belief in admissibility. It also held that limiting cross-examination on collateral matters is within the trial judge's d
• United States v. Large
  729 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the DEA agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and probable cause to seize the appellant's suitcase, and that the admission of cash evidence was proper.
• United States v. Smith
  726 F.2d 183· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic-offense evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and the refusal of a specific jury instruction did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Marquardt
  695 F.2d 1300· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance, admitting other crimes evidence, or refusing a pretrial hearing for coconspirator statements, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Longoria
  624 F.2d 66· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from stopping the taxicab, nor in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for transporting illegal aliens.
• Gov't OF the Virgin Islands v. Roldan
  612 F.2d 775· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's prior murder conviction to impeach a witness's testimony about the defendant's character was proper, and that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation to support a first-degree murder conviction.
• United States v. Myron Levin. Appeal of Myron "Pep" Levin
  606 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 8×
  A defendant is not entitled to an entrapment jury instruction unless they explicitly plead entrapment at a sufficiently early point in the trial.
• United States v. Sciortino
  601 F.2d 680· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that transporting forged endorsements on genuine securities does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2314, but transporting stolen securities with intent to defraud does.
• United States v. King
  572 F.2d 1274· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence of prior car thefts was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
• United States v. Partyka
  544 F.2d 345· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow inquiry into the informer's potential motive and participation in the prosecution, which was relevant to the defense's theory of the case.
• United States v. Borkenhagen
  468 F.2d 43· 7th Cir.· 1972-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's letter did not constitute a claim for conscientious objector status, and the admission of his Selective Service file was permissible to show criminal intent.
• United States v. Stapleton
  39 F.4th 1320· 11th Cir.· 2022-07-12 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the government's delay in extradition did not violate the defendant's speedy trial rights, the indictment was not multiplicitous or insufficiently specific, and the district court did not err in admitting evidence of migrant abuse o
• King v. Auto
  21 F. Supp. 2d 1370· N.D. Fla.· 1998-03-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding hostile environment sexual harassment and disparate treatment in promotion, thus denying summary judgment on these claims.
• United States v. Kerr
  981 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct, specifically vouching for witnesses, deprived the defendant of a fair trial and affected the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Bailin
  977 F.2d 270· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-01 ·cited 7×
  Issue preclusion, not double jeopardy, bars the government from relitigating issues necessarily decided in the defendant's favor by a jury's partial acquittal, even when retrying mistried counts.
• United States v. Montanye
  962 F.2d 1332· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 7×
• United States v. Willoughby
  860 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the taping of inmate telephone calls and conversations was permissible under Title III and the Fourth Amendment, and that Arthur Prioleau's conversation did not require Miranda warnings.
• United States v. Tobin
  840 F.2d 867· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the delay caused by a codefendant's fugitive status was excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts or denying the motion for acquittal.