-
919 F.2d 981·
5th Cir.·
1990-12-14
·cited 37×
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the district court's rulings on venue, evidence, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, or sentencing.
-
789 F.2d 750·
9th Cir.·
1986-05-12
·cited 33×
The court held that the victim's out-of-court identification was inadmissible hearsay because the victim's memory loss prevented effective cross-examination, violating the Confrontation Clause. However, the error was deemed harmless due to other evidence.
-
719 F.2d 1183·
1st Cir.·
1983-10-19
·cited 27×
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the defendants' objections regarding collateral estoppel, hypothetical questions, Brady violations, and prosecutorial misconduct were unpersuasive.
-
917 F.2d 901·
6th Cir.·
1990-10-24
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to impose a fine, as the defendant failed to prove an inability to pay. The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing.
-
885 F.2d 117·
3d Cir.·
1989-09-19
·cited 9×
The dissenting judge would hold that the witness's testimony, viewed favorably to the government, was sufficient to support the jury's findings of lascivious display and the subject's minority status.
-
843 F.2d 18·
1st Cir.·
1988-03-25
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court's finding of intentional sex discrimination was not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment.
-
681 F.2d 930·
4th Cir.·
1982-06-17
·cited 8×
The dissenting judge believes the trial judge erred by failing to strike deposition testimony not based on personal knowledge, which was prejudicial to the defendant.
-
889 F.2d 913·
9th Cir.·
1989-11-17
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in finding sufficient evidence for the jury to infer the victim had personal knowledge of his assailant's identity, and alternatively, any error in admitting the testimony was harmless.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-03-28
The court granted-in-part and denied-in-part various motions in limine filed by both parties, ruling on the admissibility of anticipated evidence and testimony for an upcoming trial.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-11
The court held that declarations from a party's attorney, containing inferences and arguments rather than mere summaries of voluminous documents, are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and should be stricken.
-
992 F.2d 809·
8th Cir.·
1993-05-06
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding witness testimony, admitting a videotape, or admitting conduct violation reports, and that any error in refusing a jury instruction regarding missing evidence was harmless.