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. Jules Huppert
  917 F.2d 507· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a principal to an offense cannot be sentenced as an accessory after the fact under the sentencing guidelines' cross-reference provision when the conduct was aimed at self-protection. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence.
• United States v. Cohen
  888 F.2d 770· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-15 ·cited 39×
  The court held that excluding evidence of a key government witness's prior fraudulent conduct, which was crucial for the defense's theory, constituted an abuse of discretion and deprived the defendants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Manner
  887 F.2d 317· D.C. Cir.· 1989-10-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Leeper's later drug sale without an on-record balancing of its probative value against its prejudicial effect, remanding for this determination. The court affirmed the denial of Manner's motion to sever and his mo
• United States v. Manganellis
  864 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the prior bad acts evidence was improperly admitted because 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is not a specific intent crime and the defendant did not place intent in issue. However, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Hillsberg
  812 F.2d 328· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding expert testimony on the defendant's capacity to conform his conduct to the law, nor in admitting evidence of prior gun use, nor in denying a recusal motion or a request for new counsel.
• United States v. Burke
  738 F.2d 1225· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination, denying a Jackson v. Denno hearing, admitting identification testimony, or admitting extrinsic offense evidence.
• United States v. Chaidez
  919 F.2d 1193· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 38×
  The detention of Ms. Silva amounted to a de facto arrest requiring probable cause, which the police lacked.
• United States v. Harris
  903 F.2d 770· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-16 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the conviction, forfeiture, and sentence, finding no error in the Travel Act violation evidence, search warrant validity, expert testimony, admission of evidence, or sentencing.
• United States v. Dworken
  855 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for attempted possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, as the defendants' actions constituted a substantial step corroborating criminal intent, and the abandonment defense was not established.
• United States v. Ford
  840 F.2d 460· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of impending audits and cash discrepancies, nor in considering the defendant's truthfulness and lack of remorse during sentencing.
• United States v. Estabrook
  774 F.2d 284· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show knowledge and absence of mistake, and that discovery and new trial rulings were not erroneous.
• United States v. Ismail
  756 F.2d 1253· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an emancipated adult son must testify against his parent, prior bad acts evidence was admissible, and the government's failure to produce a second address book did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Green
  735 F.2d 1018· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-24 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that sufficient evidence existed to prove both defendants' knowing and active participation in the conspiracy to possess and sell stolen goods.
• United States v. Siegel
  717 F.2d 9· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support wire fraud convictions based on the misappropriation of unrecorded cash sales proceeds for self-enrichment and bribery. However, the court reversed Abrams' conviction for obstruction of justice due to insufficient evide
• United States v. McDOWELL
  705 F.2d 426· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant's objective acts were sufficiently corroborative of criminal intent to sustain a conviction for attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and that evidence of a prior drug transaction was admissible.
• United States v. Allain
  671 F.2d 248· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant waived the right to appeal the admission of evidence of other criminal acts by failing to object, and that the prosecutor's closing remarks, while improper, did not constitute reversible error given the sustained objections and jury instructions.
• United States v. Talavera
  668 F.2d 625· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-14 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of evidence regarding a heroin episode was not reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Pappas
  611 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal, admitting co-conspirator statements, or denying the motion for mistrial.
• Green Miller, Jr. v. Poretsky
  595 F.2d 780· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the exclusion of evidence regarding other tenants' discrimination claims was erroneous, it was harmless error and did not affect the substantial rights of the parties, thus not warranting reversal.
• United States v. Whetzel
  589 F.2d 707· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the government failed to prove the transported tapes had a value of $5,000 or more, thus reversing convictions for transporting stolen property. Copyright infringement convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Stevens
  935 F.2d 1380· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification reliability and in excluding evidence of a similar crime, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Jardina
  747 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the defendant's inculpatory statements, the counterfeit bills, and evidence of Texas activities were admissible, and that no unreasonable delay occurred before his appearance before a magistrate.
• United States v. Nabors
  707 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the destruction of contraband evidence did not require suppression of testimony absent a showing that independent testing would likely produce favorable evidence, and that evidence of the defendant's pre-arrest silence in response to a private insurance inquir
• United States v. Baskes
  649 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-18 ·cited 37×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the mining claim's subsequent history, limiting cross-examination, refusing to disclose impeachment evidence in advance, or in its jury instructions. The court also found no rever
• United States v. Taglione
  546 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the appellant's defense theory and by admitting evidence of a subsequent similar offense.
• United States v. York
  933 F.2d 1343· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's prior murder and insurance fraud was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and motive for the charged crimes, and that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant committed the prior murder.
• United States v. Devin
  918 F.2d 280· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that evidence of BPD regulations was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show intent and knowledge, and that the delayed disclosure of a witness's psychiatric history did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  831 F.2d 162· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence obtained from the investigatory stop was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting.
• United States v. Masse
  816 F.2d 805· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that pre-arrest statements were admissible as the defendant was not in custody, and subsequent statements were admissible as they were voluntary and informed waivers after Miranda warnings. Co-conspirator statements and jury instructions
• United States v. Scelzo
  810 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior fraudulent credit card activity was proper, and refusing a mistrial and a specific cautionary instruction for co-conspirator testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. August Males, Jr.
  715 F.2d 568· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that venue was sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence and that the admission of prior drug transaction testimony was proper as it was inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses. Furthermore, comments made during closing arguments did not consti
• United States v. Gaylord Alfred TWO Eagle
  633 F.2d 93· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's possession of the victim's stolen car was admissible and sufficient, along with other circumstantial evidence, to support a juvenile delinquency adjudication for assault.
• United States v. Webb
  625 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that extrinsic offense evidence is admissible in the government's case-in-chief if intent is not normally inferable from the act charged and the defendant has not provided enforceable pre-trial assurances that intent will not be disputed. Expert testimony on a defe
• United States v. Lutz
  621 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single fraudulent scheme, the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper, and any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Jimenez
  613 F.2d 1373· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant about possession of cocaine, an unrelated offense occurring a year later, violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the evidence was not relevant to any issue other than the defendant's character and w
• United States v. Lonjinos Ramos Contreras
  602 F.2d 1237· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination of a DEA agent when there was a reasonable fear for the agent's safety, and that evidence of the defendant's cocaine use was admissible to show knowledge of illicit drugs.
• United States v. Stout
  601 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for tax law violations was proper, rejecting his claims of selective prosecution, improper evidence admission, and excessive sentencing.
• United States v. Runge
  593 F.2d 66· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard when denying Runge's motion for a new trial based on allegations of witness perjury.
• United States v. Greene
  578 F.2d 648· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments, even if improper, did not affect substantial rights given overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the defendants were not denied their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• United States v. Sigal
  572 F.2d 1320· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to testify were harmless error, the admission of prior conviction evidence was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Davis
  557 F.2d 1239· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in sentencing, closing arguments, admission of evidence, or the search warrant, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Johnson
  820 F.2d 1065· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of an uncharged bank robbery, denying severance, admitting currency seized without a warrant, admitting lineup identifications, or in its handling of Jencks Act material, and denied a remand for ineffective
• United States v. Kadouh
  768 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-24 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony about the appellant's involvement with cocaine under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show motive.
• United States v. Bernal
  719 F.2d 1475· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that evidence of drug paraphernalia and cash found in the defendant's home was admissible, and incriminating statements made during a chance encounter with an agent were also admissible. However, the court reversed the firearm conviction due to insufficient evidenc
• United States v. Roni Nadler
  698 F.2d 995· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises, thus lacking standing to challenge the search or suppress derivative evidence. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of prior counter
• United States v. Jimenez
  600 F.2d 1172· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-17 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a condition of probation requiring repayment of court-appointed counsel fees is improper if the defendant is indigent and not authorized by statute.
• United States v. Catano
  553 F.2d 497· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-06 ·cited 35×
  The court held that testimony regarding subsequent meetings was admissible and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for importation and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. House
  939 F.2d 659· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were properly admitted, evidence of prior criminal conduct was admissible, the jury instructions were appropriate, and the sentence for possession of cocaine base was constitutional.
• United States v. Lenfesty
  923 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, the exclusion of prior convictions for impeachment, the denial of severance motions, and the application of Sentencing Guidelines were proper, and any errors were harmless.
• United States v. McANDERSON
  914 F.2d 934· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury selection and composition did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, and that evidence of prior bad acts was properly admitted.