Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(3) (Statement Against Interest)

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

• United States v. Guillette
  547 F.2d 743· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury on proximate cause in relation to the "if death results" provision of 18 U.S.C. § 241, and that the refusal to give a specific alibi instruction was not reversible error.
• United States v. Rubiel Marin-Cifuentes
  866 F.2d 988· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-19 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no error in the admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, denial of severance, or sentencing.
• United States v. Riley
  657 F.2d 1377· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 63×
• United States v. Williams
  738 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while certain cross-examination of character witnesses was improper, it constituted harmless error, and pre-indictment delay did not violate due process as the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  559 F.2d 1271· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 58×
  The grand jury testimony of a previously convicted coconspirator who refuses to testify at trial is inadmissible hearsay, as it does not qualify as a statement against interest or possess equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
• United States v. Bailey
  581 F.2d 341· 3d Cir.· 1978-07-11 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting an accomplice's out-of-court confession under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) because the statement lacked sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and its admission raised serious confrontation clause conc
• 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. Fields
  871 F.2d 188· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of Robert Wayne's out-of-court statements through Gail Brown was proper, and that evidence of other crimes was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3) and 404(b).
• United States v. Satterfield
  572 F.2d 687· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-22 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kramer
  778 F. Supp. 2d 1320· M.D. Fla.· 2011-04-01 ·cited 43×
  The court held that Baker's statements were inadmissible hearsay and granted Kramer's motion to exclude them. The court also sustained Kramer's objection to the magistrate judge's order denying his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Commission.
• United States v. Garris
  616 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an FBI agent's testimony regarding a statement made by the defendant's sister, but that convictions for bank robbery and armed bank robbery arising from the same transaction should be merged.
• Brink's Inc. v. The City OF NEW York
  717 F.2d 700· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damage awards, finding sufficient evidence for punitive damages and upholding the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and jury instructions.
• United States v. Porter
  881 F.2d 878· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the exculpatory hearsay statement, that the admission of other bad acts evidence was harmless error, and that the Allen charge was not impermissibly coercive.
• United States v. Woolbright
  831 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, the inventory search was reasonable, and the challenged evidence was admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  706 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing a key defense witness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege, in refusing to admit certain statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 804, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Moore
  936 F.2d 1508· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an accomplice's statement, limiting cross-examination, or admitting palm print evidence, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Slaughter
  891 F.2d 691· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a statement under Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3) due to lack of corroboration, and that the jury instructions on entrapment were adequate.
• United States v. Monroe
  866 F.2d 1357· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that statements made by a coconspirator to a non-member can be admissible under the coconspirator exception if they further the conspiracy, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions and forfeiture.
• United States v. Magana-Olvera
  917 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Ricky Zimmerle's hearsay statements were inadmissible under Rule 804(b)(3) and violated the Sixth Amendment, but the conspiracy conviction was supported by sufficient independent evidence, while the firearms conviction was not.
• United States v. Carruth
  699 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay were unfounded, and that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States.
• United States v. Atkins
  558 F.2d 133· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the exclusion of a third-party confession under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) was reversible error, and that multiple sentences for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) for the same offense are improper.
• The United States v. White
  553 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of redacted hearsay statements of a murder victim was admissible under the against penal interest exception and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to poll the jury regarding a newspaper article.
• United States v. Harrell
  788 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that tape-recorded statements of a co-defendant were admissible under the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule, and that the trial court did not err in admitting enhanced tapes, transcripts, or in its discovery rulings.
• United States v. Montgomery
  582 F.2d 514· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that even if a letter could be admissible under the statement against interest exception, the failure to raise this argument at trial precludes finding error on appeal.
• Rock v. Huffco GAS & OIL Co.
  922 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 11×
  The court held that statements made by the injured employee to his physicians, contained in medical records, accident reports, and to family members, were inadmissible hearsay and did not meet the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
• Hollenback v. United States
  987 F.2d 1272· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's appellate counsel's error in citing the wrong statutory subsection did not constitute a constructive denial of counsel and was not prejudicial under Strickland, as the core sufficiency of the evidence argument remained valid and other potential
• United States v. Danny Wade Arthur (90-6080)
  949 F.2d 211· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding a confession under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) due to insufficient corroboration, and that the refusal to allow a demonstration with a wig and cap was not reversible error.
• United States v. Carvalho
  742 F.2d 146· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting ex-spouses' affidavits under hearsay exceptions, as the statements were not against penal interest and lacked trustworthiness, and the error was not harmless.
• United States v. Smith
  792 F.2d 441· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant who procures a witness's absence waives confrontation and hearsay objections to the witness's prior statement, and that the admission of a redacted, interlocking confession, even without a limiting instruction, was permissible.
• Keefer v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-03-26
  The court held that deposition testimony from a prior related litigation is admissible in the current litigation, overruling defendants' hearsay objections.
• United States v. Zuluaga
  999 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1993-08-09
  The court held that new counsel must be appointed to represent the defendant on appeal due to the defendant's indigence and the circumstances surrounding the appeal, including counsel's failure to comply with procedural rules.
• United States v. Thomas
  919 F.2d 495· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-19
  The court held that the proffered testimony of the deceased co-defendant's attorney was inadmissible hearsay, even if it were not privileged, because it lacked trustworthiness and did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) or 804(b)(5).