Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(6)

207 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Gomez
  921 F.2d 378· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Benavente of conspiracy and that the district court did not err in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The court also held that while the admission of toll records was erroneous, the error was harmle
• Kennedy v. LOS Angeles Police Dep't
  887 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Kennedy for grand theft and were not entitled to qualified immunity, and that the LAPD's policy of conducting body-cavity searches on all felony arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Bortnovsky
  879 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed convictions for RICO and mail fraud, but remanded for correction of sentences, finding that the mailing of a letter concerning an insurance claim was reasonably foreseeable and thus satisfied the causation element of the mail fraud statute.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Marcelino Roldan Fonseca
  795 F.2d 1102· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the FDIC met its burden for summary judgment, and the appellants' defenses and claims were immaterial under federal law or unsupported by admissible evidence.
• Rychen Paddack v. Dave Christensen, Inc.
  745 F.2d 1254· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that audit reports were admissible under Rule 703 as a basis for expert testimony and that the district court erred in remanding for reconsideration of an alternative holding already decided.
• Davis v. State
  562 So. 2d 431· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-06-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting a laboratory report as a business record in a probation revocation hearing does not violate due process or the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, even if the technician who performed the test is unavailable for cross-examination.
• United States v. Lowell F. Johnson
  594 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, the proponent of a summary must establish that the underlying materials are admissible in evidence.
• United States v. Pfeiffer
  539 F.2d 668· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of certain testimony and delivery receipts as business records was proper, and that the limitation on cross-examination did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States Football League v. Nat'l Football League
  842 F.2d 1335· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence and that the USFL's claims of antitrust violations and predatory conduct by the NFL were not substantiated.
• United States v. Sherron Basey
  613 F.2d 198· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the admission of the voice identification, chemist's report, and driver's license was not erroneous.
• United States v. Johnson
  971 F.2d 562· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·cited 27×
  The court held that transfers of funds from investors to the defendant's account did not constitute transactions in 'criminally derived property' under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 because the defendant had not yet 'obtained' the proceeds. However, transfers from the defendant's account to i
• United States v. David A. Sturman (90-3147)
  951 F.2d 1466· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the 'defraud' clause of 18 U.S.C. § 371 was applicable to the broad conspiracy charged, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of David Sturman and Ralph Levine. The court also found that the willfulness element for Reuben Sturman's fa
• United States v. Franco
  874 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a law enforcement agent can be a qualified witness to authenticate business records under Rule 803(6) if they understand the record-keeping system, and that supplemental jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Lino Catabran
  836 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting computer printouts as business records, allowing testimony about carpet removal, or denying motions for severance and mistrial, and that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. RAY
  930 F.2d 1368· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines is impermissible without a mitigating circumstance, even if the case is deemed 'highly unusual'.
• United States v. Bonallo
  858 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 26×
  A scheme to defraud a bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 does not require the misrepresentation to precede the transfer of money or property; the indictment was sufficient, and the evidence supported conviction on 11 of 12 counts.
• United States v. Huber
  772 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 26×
  The admission of an out-of-court statement by a coconspirator violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Hansen
  583 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions or restricting cross-examination, and that most convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded the perjury convictions for Steven R. Hansen due to prejudicial
• United States v. Page
  544 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay or lack of speedy trial, nor in admitting the lease agreement into evidence.
• United States v. Parker
  749 F.2d 628· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C.A. § 659 does not require proof that the goods were stolen from a specifically enumerated place if it is proven they were stolen from an interstate or foreign shipment.
• Petrocelli v. Davis T. Gallison, M.D.
  679 F.2d 286· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding statements from a hospital record under the business records exception (Fed.R.Evid. 803(6)) because the source of the information was unclear and it was uncertain whether the statements constituted p
• Matador Drilling Co., Inc. v. Post
  662 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the jury's finding of substantial performance was supported by sufficient evidence, but the verdict included an amount improperly claimed under the force majeure clause, requiring a remittitur.
• United States v. Patrick
  959 F.2d 991· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The television receipt was not hearsay when offered to show the defendant's connection to the apartment and television, not for the truth of payment.
• United States v. Elliott
  849 F.2d 554· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's arguments regarding speedy trial, governmental misconduct, evidentiary rulings, and procedural issues lacked merit.
• United States v. Atchley
  699 F.2d 1055· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting telephone toll records, a summary chart, coconspirator testimony, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict.
• United States v. Jones
  554 F.2d 251· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of business records was proper and that there was sufficient evidence to support the wire fraud conviction.
• United States v. LAI
  944 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting drug records without proper foundation and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. It also instructed the district court to vacate Lai's conspiracy conviction if his continuing criminal enterprise conviction stands.
• United States v. van Dorn
  925 F.2d 1331· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding his prior drug prosecution and alleged threats, nor in admitting testimony about a defendant's affiliation with the Gambino crime family and expe
• United States v. Chestang
  849 F.2d 528· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that coconspirator statements were properly admitted, the government's discovery violation was harmless, the admission of check endorsements was harmless error, and the district court's prejudicial remark was cured by a corrective instruction.
• Howard F. and Mildred E. Keogh v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  713 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-17 ·cited 22×
  The tax court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a casino dealer's personal diary as a business record exception to hearsay, nor did it err in determining income tax deficiencies based on a statistical analysis of that diary.
• United States v. Ricardo "Ricky" Vela
  673 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prosecution's notice-of-alibi filing was not an abuse of Rule 12.1, and telephone records were properly admitted under the business records exception.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. First Termite Control Co., Inc.
  646 F.2d 424· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a freight bill prepared by one company and authenticated by an employee of another company, who had no knowledge of its preparation or interest in the accuracy of the origin information, was inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6).
• Bergen v. F/V ST. Patrick
  816 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 21×
  Punitive damages are unavailable under the general maritime law when joined with claims under the Jones Act or DOHSA, and factual findings for survivors' punitive damages were clearly erroneous. Awards for loss of services, support, and inheritance are limited to pecuniary losses
• United States v. Hayes
  861 F.2d 1225· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that computer data compilations of tax records, properly authenticated and kept in the ordinary course of business, are admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) even if the IRS is considered law enforcement, provided the authoring employee testifies. The court also held
• United States v. Williams
  837 F.2d 1009· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of 'yellow sheets' was proper as a party admission, and the restriction on cross-examination did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. King
  613 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that SSA forms were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and that the defendant's statements did not fall under the 'exculpatory no' doctrine.
• Moore v. Sears
  683 F.2d 1321· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that memoranda regarding an employee's performance were not hearsay when offered to show the employer's good faith motive for termination, not the truth of the memoranda's contents.
• United States v. Sandor Regner
  677 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior insurance claims was not an abuse of discretion, a continuance granted was sufficient, and the admission of foreign public documents did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Watson v. Adecco Emp. Servs., Inc.
  252 F. Supp. 2d 1347· M.D. Fla.· 2003-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Adecco, as a temporary employment agency lacking control over the plaintiffs' work, was not a Title VII employer, and that the plaintiffs' claims relied on inadmissible hearsay.
• United States v. Garcia
  818 F.2d 136· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove appellants knowingly transferred firearms to Cano Bufi, who was under indictment or convicted of a serious crime (Count III). However, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for transferring firearms to someon
• Cap. Marine Supply, Inc. v. M/V Roland Thomas, II
  719 F.2d 104· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that testimony based on computerized business records, properly authenticated, is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, but vacated the interest award due to a calculation error.
• United States v. Plum
  558 F.2d 568· 10th Cir.· 1977-07-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of certain exhibits was either harmless error or proper under the business records exception, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Marshall
  762 F.2d 419· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the admission of an investigator's testimony, based on her review of unproduced and unauthenticated business records, constituted inadmissible hearsay and reversible error.
• United States v. Johnson
  722 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the admission of a serial number report from the ATF establishing interstate commerce was not plain error, and any hearsay in the certification was harmless. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Fabio Jaramillo-Suarez
  942 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of a pay/owe sheet as circumstantial evidence of the apartment's use for drug trafficking, the testimony regarding a driver's license and pager, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were not reversible errors. The court also affirmed the
• Saks Int'l, Inc. v. M/V "Export Champion
  817 F.2d 1011· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the loading tallies as business records, but vacated the denial of attorneys' fees for further consideration.
• United States v. Wordy Jack Thompson, Jr.
  811 F.2d 841· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for providing materially false information in a loan application to a federally insured institution, and that materiality is a question of law for the court.
• United States v. Everette A. Bohrer
  807 F.2d 159· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the summons was properly issued, discovery of a tax protester list was not required, the evidence of willfulness was sufficient, and the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Albert
  773 F.2d 386· 1st Cir.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for severance, admitting the FDIC certificate, sustaining a codefendant's Fifth Amendment privilege, or refusing to grant a judgment of acquittal.
• Calhoun v. Baylor
  646 F.2d 1158· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of actual fraud and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.