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

• Zimmerman v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Rapid City
  848 F.2d 1047· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the jury's verdict, the directed verdict, or the evidentiary rulings. The court also affirmed the denial of motions to dismiss and the admission of certain evidence.
• United States v. Rivera
  775 F.2d 1559· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Platt's conviction on the nine telephone counts, reversing those convictions. However, the court affirmed the convictions of both Platt and Rivera on the charge of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribut
• United States v. Deil Otto Gustafson
  728 F.2d 1078· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other acts under Rule 404(b) and in denying a motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Vincent
  681 F.2d 462· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-23 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence of post-arrest threats under a res gestae theory, and that the conviction for threatening the President was supported by sufficient evidence under an objective interpretation of the statute.
• United States v. Hooton
  662 F.2d 628· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress statements, admitting live-witness testimony, admitting evidence of other acts, excluding evidence on typical collector activity, or giving an Allen charge.
• United States v. Johnson
  585 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the 'complicity' of bank officers does not negate the intent required to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1014, and that evidence of two separate closings was sufficient to support a jury finding of two conspiracies.
• United States v. Gjon N. Nivica
  887 F.2d 1110· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 57×
  The court affirmed the disposition of the motion in limine issue, agreeing that precedent foreclosed a different approach. The court also concurred in the result regarding the right to testify, finding no reversible error.
• United States v. Rovetuso
  768 F.2d 809· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-16 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions for attempting to interfere with a witness and obstructing justice.
• United States v. McCOWN
  711 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-02 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not violated by the Speedy Trial Act, that severance was not required, and that the indictment and evidence admitted were proper.
• United States v. Kalish
  690 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the defendant's trial on the conspiracy counts of the second indictment was barred by double jeopardy because the evidence demonstrated a single, continuing conspiracy. The court affirmed the conviction on the substantive count.
• United States v. Wilson
  578 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a partially unintelligible tape recording and its transcript, nor in admitting testimony about an extraneous drug transaction, as any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Cooper
  577 F.2d 1079· 6th Cir.· 1978-06-08 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on intent to defraud could have been more precise, it was not so prejudicial as to require reversal, and the admission of evidence of prior bad acts without a limiting instruction was not plain error.
• United States v. Crocker
  568 F.2d 1049· 3d Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 56×·via Rule 404(b)
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, not charged in the indictment and not discussed in the grand jury testimony, amounted to a constructive amendment of the indictment, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Birney
  686 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of embezzlement to prove motive for making false entries, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice from preindictment delay to warrant dismissal of the false entry coun
• United States v. Moccia
  681 F.2d 61· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-16 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the admission of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes was proper under Rule 404(b) and that the jury instructions regarding lesser included offenses were adequate. The court also affirmed the enhanced sentence under the Dangerous Special Drug Offender s
• United States v. Raphael L. Gonzalez
  661 F.2d 488· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the admission of diazapam evidence was not a prejudicial variance or a violation of Rule 404(b), and the denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was proper.
• United States v. McMAHON
  592 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant's prior misdemeanor conviction as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because its probative value for showing intent was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair pre
• United States v. Ekram Manafzadeh
  592 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-23 ·cited 54×
  The admission of evidence of subsequent crimes was improper because intent was not a disputed issue, and the evidence was not relevant to any other issue in the case. Therefore, the conviction is reversed.
• United States v. Brown
  562 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-06 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence from a dismissed count without a cautionary instruction, nor in refusing to disclose the informant's identity or appoint an expert, and that the nondisclosure of certain informant statements was not prejudicial
• United States v. Sellers
  906 F.2d 597· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and that the defendants' convictions and sentences were proper.
• United States v. Walther
  867 F.2d 1334· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the government's reverse sting operation did not constitute outrageous conduct violating due process, and that various trial errors claimed by the appellants were either not errors or did not rise to the level of reversible error.
• United States v. ORR
  825 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, refusing to disclose a non-testifying coconspirator's statement, giving a deliberate ignorance instruction, refusing defense theory instructions, admitting evidence of extrinsic act
• United States v. Licavoli
  604 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-13 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the authorization orders for electronic surveillance were valid, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying hearings.
• United States v. Gale Nace and Nathan J. Warren, Sr.
  561 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 53×
  The conviction should be reversed because the prosecution injected grossly inflammatory and prejudicial evidence near the end of the trial.
• United States v. Jefferson
  925 F.2d 1242· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the appellants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and thus had no Fourth Amendment claim, and that the erroneous admission of a pager bill was harmless error.
• United States v. Bonnett
  877 F.2d 1450· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that passing a series of worthless checks can constitute a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a)(1), and that the defendants' conduct in using these checks to artificially inflate account balances constituted a scheme to obtain property by false pretenses und
• United States v. Alicia Davis (85-1153)
  809 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in conducting an in camera hearing regarding peremptory challenges, as defendants' presence was not constitutionally required and their counsel had ample opportunity to present arguments. The court also affirmed the district cour
• United States v. Cruz
  797 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of cash and food stamps, expert testimony on food stamp use, co-conspirator statements, and cocaine vials, as these evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion and did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Joseph F. "Joey" Astling
  733 F.2d 1446· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on prosecutorial vindictiveness, continuances, marijuana classification, jury voir dire, severance, admission of extrinsic evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. McNEILL
  728 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 52×
  The court held that pretrial publicity from a related indictment did not presume prejudice or demonstrate actual prejudice, and that the admission of certain testimony and the government's elicitation of immunity orders were not erroneous.
• United States v. Berardi
  675 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a count charging obstruction of justice was not prejudicially duplicitous, joinder of counts was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Patterson
  648 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that convictions must be reversed if jurors were prejudiced by knowledge of a defendant's prior trial, and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on the right to remain silent. An investigatory stop is permissible even if it briefly restricts a suspect's fr
• United States v. Trowery
  542 F.2d 623· 3d Cir.· 1976-09-23 ·cited 52×
  The court held that statements made by a co-defendant in furtherance of a joint criminal undertaking are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, even without a conspiracy charge in the indictment. The court also found the admission of the defendant's pr
• United States v. Gaggi
  811 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 51×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 241 requires the victim of a conspiracy to be a citizen of the United States, and the district court erred in convicting defendants for a conspiracy against non-citizens.
• United States v. Alejo Maldonado Medina
  761 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that evidence of a prior kidnapping was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and as proof of an overt act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting coconspirator statements or in its handling of pretrial publicity and jury i
• United States v. Chilcote
  724 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 51×
  The court affirmed all of appellant's convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the sufficiency of the indictment.
• United States v. Ricardo
  619 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 51×
  The court held that extraterritorial jurisdiction attaches for conspiracy if intended territorial effects are shown, even without an overt act in the U.S., and that evidence seized and admitted was lawful.
• United States v. Capo
  595 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-24 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the defendants were not denied a fair trial by pre-trial or mid-trial publicity, nor by alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and affirmed their convictions.
• United States v. Brunson
  549 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-24 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the defendant voluntarily accompanied investigators, thus no illegal arrest occurred, and evidence of a prior similar crime was admissible to prove intent.
• United States v. Lowe
  860 F.2d 1370· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment. The court also affirmed that 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is a sentence-enhancement provision, not a substantive offense.
• United States v. Porter
  821 F.2d 968· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 50×
  The dissenting judge would reverse all convictions and grant new trials due to cumulative errors in admitting evidence and improperly joining defendants.
• United States v. Brennan
  798 F.2d 581· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 50×
  The court held that prior grand jury testimony, though inadmissible as substantive evidence, could be admitted for rehabilitation purposes to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence, and that evidence of other uncharged crimes was admissible to complete the sto
• United States v. Crocker
  788 F.2d 802· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while most evidentiary rulings were proper, the sentencing judge's comments created a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, requiring a resentencing.
• United States v. Hutchings
  751 F.2d 230· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the judgment, finding that while certain evidence was improperly admitted, the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered the errors harmless.
• United States v. McKEON
  738 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a prior opening statement by defense counsel is admissible against a criminal defendant in a subsequent trial if it constitutes an admission of a party-opponent and meets specific evidentiary standards, and that disqualification of counsel was proper when thei
• United States v. Parr
  716 F.2d 796· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the seizure of currency during a fire investigation was permissible under exigent circumstances, and the evidence was sufficient to establish intent to defraud.
• United States v. Daly
  716 F.2d 1499· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a violation of the Speedy Trial Act's minimum 30-day preparation period, if treated as an erroneous denial of a continuance, warrants reversal and remand for a new trial, provided the defendant moved for dismissal. It also held that Nebraska certificates of ti
• United States v. Rodger Wagoner
  713 F.2d 1371· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other wrongful acts, telephone records, or in its handling of the indictment submission to the jury.
• United States v. Loran Anthony Biswell
  700 F.2d 1310· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 50×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior crimes or bad acts under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) for purposes of showing motive, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident.
• United States v. Angelilli
  660 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a state court is not an 'enterprise' under RICO and that evidence of similar prior acts can be admissible under FRE 404(b) to show design or system.