-
649 F.2d 292·
5th Cir.·
1981-06-29
·cited 58×
The court held that the district court erred in excluding the appellant's mother's testimony as inadmissible hearsay, as it was offered to prove the appellant's knowledge and as a prior consistent statement.
-
692 F.2d 345·
5th Cir.·
1982-11-10
·cited 36×
The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on all essential elements of the substantive offense in Count Eight, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial on that count. However, the court affirmed the convictions on the remaining
-
476 F.2d 1145·
D.C. Cir.·
1973-03-09
·cited 27×
-
411 F.2d 228·
10th Cir.·
1969-05-20
·cited 14×
The court held that the defendant's assignments of error regarding the use of the terms 'insane' and 'insanity,' improper trial tactics, refusal of a 'missing witness' instruction, and prejudicial references to prior jail stays were without merit.
-
565 F.2d 479·
7th Cir.·
1977-11-15
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b).
-
200 F.2d 652·
5th Cir.·
1953-01-06
·cited 12×
The court held that an erroneous jury instruction misplacing the burden of proof on a material issue requires reversal and remand for a new trial.
-
933 F.2d 61·
1st Cir.·
1991-05-10
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the insurance broker license application forms as evidence of intent and consciousness of guilt, and that any error in jury instructions was harmless.
-
904 F.2d 65·
D.C. Cir.·
1990-06-01
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court erred in denying the appellants permission to introduce the witness's grand jury testimony, entitling them to a new trial.
-
400 F.2d 847·
6th Cir.·
1968-08-08
·cited 8×
The court held that highly prejudicial and irrelevant cross-examination tainted the proceedings, requiring reversal.
-
995 F.2d 982·
10th Cir.·
1993-06-07
The court held that the district court erred in admitting a prior food stamp conviction for impeachment purposes, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err in failing to explicitly ascertain the defendant's consent to a stipulation, and
-
414 F.2d 804·
5th Cir.·
1969-07-23
The court held that while hearsay testimony was erroneously admitted, it did not affect the jury's verdict, and the conviction for evasion was proper.