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. Penson
  896 F.2d 1087· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the jury instructions were adequate and the admission of evidence of prior bad acts was proper under Rule 404(b) and the Shackleford test, and that the evidence was sufficient to identify the defendants as members of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Doran
  882 F.2d 1511· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to make contemporaneous findings required by the Speedy Trial Act for an "ends of justice" continuance, leading to dismissal of two counts. The court also found no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness for the superseding
• United States v. Jacob T. Ellzey (88-3459) & Paul W. Cochran (88-3470)
  874 F.2d 324· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that any errors in admitting evidence or failing to record side-bar conferences were harmless.
• Williams v. Mensey
  785 F.2d 631· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish county liability under § 1983, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery, mistrial, evidence admission, or damage and fee awards.
• United States v. Maggitt
  784 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions for witness tampering and retaliation, and that any misjoinder of defendants was harmless error. The indictment was also found to be sufficient and not multiplicious.
• United States v. Feldman
  761 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-01 ·cited 34×
  The admission of a civil deposition in a criminal trial violates the Confrontation Clause and Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) if the defendant lacked a meaningful opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine the deponent, and the trial also violated the Speedy Trial Act by commencing le
• United States v. Smith
  757 F.2d 1161· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 34×
  The government's manipulation of evidence to create two separate crimes from a single transaction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Forrest F. McCLUNEY v. JOS. Schlitz Brewing Co.
  728 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding insufficient evidence of retaliatory discharge and in excluding certain evidence, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.
• United States v. Taylor
  728 F.2d 864· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant knowingly possessed the unregistered machine gun and silencer, and that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other items seized or in its cross-examination of the defendant.
• United States v. Rosena Poston
  727 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the joint representation hearing was adequate, the admission of 'bad acts' evidence was proper, and the jury instructions were sufficient, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Harrison
  679 F.2d 942· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the wife's consent to search the shared storage area was valid, and that other evidence admitted was either harmless error or admissible under evidentiary rules, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Escobar
  674 F.2d 469· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of computer-generated information regarding a defendant's prior record and suspected drug smuggling activities constituted hearsay and improper use of prior offenses, requiring reversal of his conviction. However, the court found sufficient evide
• Kramas v. Sec. GAS & OIL Inc.
  672 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions on materiality for federal securities claims require reversal, but affirmed the dismissal of other claims and the judgment for breach of fiduciary duty.
• United States v. Gonsalves
  668 F.2d 73· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant's statement as evidence of consciousness of guilt, as its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Merryman
  630 F.2d 780· 10th Cir.· 1980-09-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the investigatory stop and subsequent search were lawful, and the admission of evidence of prior acts and the prosecutor's comments did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Toney
  615 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-09 ·cited 34×
  A district court judge may exclude evidence of a prior conviction involving dishonesty when its prejudicial effect is overwhelming, even if admissible under Rule 609(a)(2).
• United States v. Robbins
  613 F.2d 688· 8th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 34×
  The dissent argues that the defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 912 should be reversed because the evidence did not prove he 'acted' as a federal officer, and the prosecutor's remarks were unfairly prejudicial.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Warren P. Berry. Appeal of Warren Berry. Appeal of Guillermo Brignoni
  604 F.2d 221· 3d Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 34×
  The defendants' convictions for kidnapping must be reversed because they lacked the specific intent to commit an offense proscribed by the kidnapping statute, specifically the intent to exact money at the time of the alleged seizure and confinement.
• United States v. Drury
  582 F.2d 1181· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, the trial court did not err in admitting testimony of prior acts, and the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Lamb
  575 F.2d 1310· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that defendants waived their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by testifying on direct examination about certain events, and that the trial court properly supervised the scope of cross-examination. It also held that prior convictions were admissi
• United States v. Smith
  552 F.2d 257· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury, the indictment was valid, and the defendant's rights were not violated by discovery procedures or delays.
• United States v. Brown
  547 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred the government from using evidence of Brown's alleged conspiratorial conversations with Hendrix, as this issue was necessarily decided in Brown's favor in a prior perjury acquittal. However, collateral estoppel did not apply to Hendr
• United States v. Goichman
  547 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of certain documents and a judge's remark did not constitute reversible error in a tax evasion conviction.
• United States v. Johnson
  525 F.2d 999· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose an FBI memorandum summarizing a defendant's oral statement was not prejudicial and constituted harmless error, and that the defendant was not denied a speedy trial.
• United States v. Perez
  870 F.2d 1222· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence or in its rulings on witness testimony and government arguments, and that any potential errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Elizabeth Morgan, M.D. v. Foretich
  846 F.2d 941· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding statements made by a child to a psychologist for purposes of diagnosis or treatment under Fed.R.Evid. 803(4).
• United States v. Weddell
  800 F.2d 1404· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed Weddell's convictions but remanded Hammond's case for an evidentiary hearing regarding government misconduct.
• United States v. Jacques George Simon
  767 F.2d 524· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 33×
  The court held that drug-related evidence was admissible in a trial for firearm possession by a felon because it was integrally related to proving possession and not solely offered to show criminal disposition.
• Slyvester Harris v. Harvey
  605 F.2d 330· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-20 ·cited 33×
  A judge's extrajudicial acts, motivated by racial animus and performed under color of law, are not protected by judicial or prosecutorial immunity and can form the basis of an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• United States v. Cook
  592 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant's procedural errors did not warrant reversal of his mail fraud conviction.
• United States v. Reese
  568 F.2d 1246· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the admission of rebuttal testimony regarding prior bad acts was proper to show intent and knowledge, and that the jury instructions, while containing a minor error, did not constitute plain error. The admission of hospital records was also proper. Finally, th
• United States v. McDONALD
  935 F.2d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and that various procedural and sentencing issues raised on appeal lacked merit.
• United States v. Ira Glen Anthony Walters
  904 F.2d 765· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of a photograph of a defendant holding a firearm was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug conspiracy and related offenses.
• United States v. De La Cruz
  902 F.2d 121· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, except for the issue of jury empanelment by a magistrate, which was remanded for further proceedings.
• United States v. Ferrer-Cruz
  899 F.2d 135· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior drug convictions was an error because it was unfairly prejudicial and not properly admissible under Rule 404(b).
• United States v. Studley
  892 F.2d 518· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions for continuance, severance, and acquittal, nor in admitting evidence of prior similar acts.
• United States v. Hogan
  886 F.2d 1497· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 32×·via Rule 404(b)
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for aiding and abetting bribery, tape-recorded co-conspirator statements were admissible, and severance of tax counts was not required.
• United States v. Vest
  842 F.2d 1319· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in admitting 'bad acts' evidence or prior consistent statements, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Casamayor
  837 F.2d 1509· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on severance, sufficiency of evidence, Jencks Act, evidentiary matters, jury instructions, jury misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Martinez
  836 F.2d 684· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for perjury on Count 27 must be reversed because his statement was literally true, but affirmed the convictions on other counts and the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Gregorio Manriquez Arbizo
  833 F.2d 244· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting closing arguments, that a prosecutor's improper comment was harmless error, and that the jury instruction on deliberate ignorance was appropriate and sufficiently explained.
• United States v. Johnson
  802 F.2d 1459· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances and that while the admission of a witness's prior inconsistent statement was improper bootstrapping, it was harmless error due to defense counsel's failure to object on that ground
• United States v. Ferguson
  776 F.2d 217· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant waived his Speedy Trial Act rights by failing to object, that the expungement of prior convictions was validly handled, and that the evidence and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Nabors
  761 F.2d 465· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in Gena Preston's house, and the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes or in its handling of alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Lavelle
  751 F.2d 1266· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of EPA attorneys, limiting direct examination of the appellant, or admitting evidence of other bad acts.
• United States v. Parrish
  736 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial error in the admission of prior conviction evidence, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, venue, or severance rulings.
• United States v. Moore
  732 F.2d 983· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 32×
  The admission of 'bad acts' testimony was proper because it was relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for proving intent and rebutting entrapment, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• United States v. Vitale
  728 F.2d 1090· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's post-indictment statements were admissible because they were volunteered and not deliberately elicited, and that the admission of other crimes evidence was proper rebuttal. The court also found no abuse of discretion in discovery rulings and su
• Fitzgerald v. United States
  719 F.2d 1069· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying a lesser included offense instruction.
• United States v. Turpin
  707 F.2d 332· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, admitting other crimes evidence, refusing a jury instruction, or denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, and that the cumulative impact of alleged errors did not deny a fair trial