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. Parkin
  917 F.2d 313· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and distribution of cocaine and marijuana, finding that evidence admitted was properly handled under the Federal Rules of Evidence and that jury selection by a magistrate was permissible with consent.
• United States v. Bolick
  917 F.2d 135· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding unrelated LSD sales by a witness was proper background evidence, and the admission of a statement corroborating testimony was also proper, despite procedural arguments.
• In re the State-Record Co., Inc.
  917 F.2d 124· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying a 'reasonable likelihood' standard instead of the 'substantial probability' standard when sealing court records in a criminal case, and that closure orders must be narrowly tailored and supported by specific findings.
• United States v. Ransbottom
  914 F.2d 743· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's actions in traveling in interstate commerce with the intent that a murder be committed for pecuniary value, even without a completed agreement or consideration at the time of travel, constituted a violation of the federal murder-for-hire statut
• United States v. McDONALD
  905 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while there were errors in admitting evidence of past drug use, hearsay testimony, and in the prosecutor's closing argument, these errors were harmless given the strength of other evidence and the implausibility of the defendant's story.
• United States v. Knight
  898 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements, admitting evidence of prior gambling debts, or in its handling of a prosecutor's comment during closing argument.
• United States v. Williams
  895 F.2d 1202· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence from prior searches was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent and knowledge, and that evidence found under a refrigerator was admissible under the plain view doctrine during a lawful sweep search.
• United States v. Johnson
  893 F.2d 451· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent tax conduct was admissible to show intent and absence of mistake, and a prosecutor's remark about non-payment on amended returns did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Ratliff
  893 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the jurisdictional amount and intent for the National Stolen Property Act violations, and that evidence of other crimes was properly admitted.
• United States v. Gahagan
  881 F.2d 1380· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 was not established, despite suspicious conduct.
• United States v. ANT
  882 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a guilty plea entered in tribal court, which complied with tribal law and the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), should not be suppressed in federal court.
• Pinkham v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co.
  874 F.2d 875· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence, the directed verdict on the Boiler Inspection Act claim, or the jury instructions.
• Lamborn v. Dittmer
  873 F.2d 522· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by preventing the defendant from calling the plaintiffs' counsel as a witness, which was crucial for the defense's case regarding the partnership agreement's interpretation.
• Krieger v. Gold Bond Bldg. Prods.
  863 F.2d 1091· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the enhancement of attorney's fees was unwarranted, but affirmed the district court's findings of gender discrimination and liability.
• Jordan v. Clayton Brokerage Co. OF ST. Louis, Inc.
  861 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the punitive damages award was not excessive and that the admission of evidence concerning a larger fraudulent plan was proper. The court also rejected constitutional challenges to the award.
• United States v. Micke
  859 F.2d 473· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge holds that the admission of testimony regarding defendant's offer to backdate documents for another taxpayer was an abuse of discretion and that the disqualification of defendant's chosen co-counsel was improper.
• United States v. Bullock
  857 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of other "bad acts" was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), that materiality is a question of law for the court, and that the defendant failed to preserve his objection to a jury instruction. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for correct
• United States v. Moore
  845 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of prior letters, while potentially prejudicial, was not reversible error because they were relevant to the defendant's state of mind and any error was harmless due to cumulative evidence.
• United States v. Sazenski
  833 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1987-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions did not impermissibly amend the indictment, and any misjoinder of defendants was harmless error.
• Wedemann v. Solem
  826 F.2d 766· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior fires, insufficient evidence, and refusal of a jury instruction did not violate due process, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• Schneider v. Emanuel Revici, M.D.
  817 F.2d 987· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that express assumption of risk is an available affirmative defense to a medical malpractice action under New York law, and if proven, would totally bar recovery.
• United States v. Eaton
  808 F.2d 72· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions on constructive possession, when read as a whole, were not misleading, and that the cross-examination of the defendant regarding his prior conviction and drug use was permissible because the defendant opened the door to these subjects.
• United States v. McGUIRE
  808 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while admitting predisposition evidence in the government's case-in-chief was error, it was harmless error because the defendant's own actions created confusion about the entrapment defense.
• United States v. Dunn
  805 F.2d 1275· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's prior egg thefts was improperly admitted, as its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and it was used to prove character and propensity, violating Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 404
• United States v. Crachy
  800 F.2d 83· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the possession and sale of counterfeit currency on the same date constituted two distinct offenses, allowing for separate convictions and sentences, and that prior bad acts evidence was admissible to prove intent.
• United States v. Anzalone
  783 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of prior fraudulent insurance claims, even from entities not named in the indictment, was admissible to prove the scheme and the substantiality of the misrepresentations, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such evidence
• United States v. Efrain Lamberty
  778 F.2d 59· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior bad acts, which was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, constituted reversible error because it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Dickens
  775 F.2d 1056· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination associating the defendant with an organized crime group was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. Schaffner
  771 F.2d 149· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of prior acquittal for destruction of evidence was inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) because intent was not a disputed issue, and its admission was not harmless error.
• United States v. Basile
  771 F.2d 307· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's taped admissions, corroborated by independent evidence of the car's condition and the insurance payments, were sufficient to establish the corpus delicti for mail fraud. It also held that evidence of prior similar 'stolen' car incidents was pro
• United States v. Hastings J. Dise
  763 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, the jury instructions were correct, evidence of other crimes was properly admitted, and the motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied.
• United States v. C.L. Carr
  764 F.2d 496· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment despite the improper characterization of an FBI agent as a "grand jury agent," as the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court also held that the district court did not
• United States v. Brainard
  745 F.2d 320· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant waived any objections arising from missing trial exhibits due to failure to make a timely claim, and that evidence of a prior investment scheme was properly admitted to show knowledge and credibility.
• United States v. Teague
  737 F.2d 378· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence and the prosecutor's contact with a defense witness's attorney did not constitute reversible error, as any potential prejudice was either properly managed by jury instructions or harmless.
• United States v. Lightle
  728 F.2d 468· 10th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the mailings were sufficiently related to the scheme to defraud and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for acquittal, change of venue, or suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Booker
  706 F.2d 860· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The government is not required to accept a defendant's stipulation to a prior felony conviction in lieu of proving that element of the case, even if the prior conviction is similar to the current charge.
• United States v. Naylor
  705 F.2d 110· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while one prior misdemeanor conviction was admissible as a prior similar act, the admissibility of the second was questionable, but any error was harmless. Therefore, the trial court's denial of the motion in limine was affirmed.
• United States v. Smith
  685 F.2d 1293· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of prior insurance claims was admissible to prove the defendant's scheme to defraud and intent, as its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Ferretti
  635 F.2d 1089· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by denying the defendant the right to make the last argument to the jury under Local Rule 13, which appeared to be in effect at the time of trial, and that this error substantially prejudiced the defendant.
• United States v. Calhoun
  604 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting evidence of unrelated bank robbery bait bills was an abuse of discretion because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Riley Ray Fultz
  602 F.2d 830· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and any errors in testimony or law enforcement conduct did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Petsas
  592 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment, denying a continuance, and permitting the impeachment of a government witness.
• United States v. Yopp
  577 F.2d 362· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes or acts, without a limiting instruction to the jury, constituted reversible error when the evidence was used to prove intent or participation in the charged offense.
• United States v. Quade
  563 F.2d 375· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict, the prior injunction was admissible as background and for proving intent, and the sentences imposed under the contempt statute were legally permissible.
• United States v. Reece
  547 F.2d 432· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possessing, forging, and uttering stolen federal checks, but insufficient to prove the state checks were stolen from the mail.
• United States v. Zulquarnan Khan
  993 F.2d 1368· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant could not be prosecuted for using a communication facility to facilitate a drug conspiracy (Count VIII) because the doctrine of specialty was violated, as Pakistan did not unambiguously agree to extradite him for that specific offense. The court
• United States v. Sampson
  980 F.2d 883· 3d Cir.· 1992-11-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred by admitting prior drug convictions without a proper articulation of their relevance under Rule 404(b) and without conducting a Rule 403 balancing test.
• United States v. Martinez
  979 F.2d 1424· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions to disclose the confidential informant, denying severance, denying a mistrial, refusing a vicarious entrapment instruction, and admitting evidence of cocaine found in a defendant's wallet.
• Shawnya Jones v. Southern Pacific Railroad
  962 F.2d 447· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of the engineer's prior safety infractions and in denying a written copy of jury instructions.
• United States v. Sanderson
  966 F.2d 184· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a jury's acquittal on an extortion count does not render a conviction on a theft count inconsistent, and that the theft of employee time can be aggregated with the theft of materials to meet the statutory value threshold.