Unfair Prejudice

888 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 386 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Schrand v. Fed. Pac. Elec. Co.
  851 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting testimony from former employees about their terminations, as it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and that the jury instruction on willfulness was improper.
• Davis v. Lane
  814 F.2d 397· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred by merging jury instructions for federal and state law claims and by directing a verdict on the due process claim, requiring a new trial.
• Herring v. State
  501 So. 2d 19· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-12-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of the defendant's refusal to submit to a gunshot residue test was erroneous because the defendant was not informed of any adverse consequences for refusal.
• United States v. Siegel
  717 F.2d 9· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support wire fraud convictions based on the misappropriation of unrecorded cash sales proceeds for self-enrichment and bribery. However, the court reversed Abrams' conviction for obstruction of justice due to insufficient evide
• Green Miller, Jr. v. Poretsky
  595 F.2d 780· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the exclusion of evidence regarding other tenants' discrimination claims was erroneous, it was harmless error and did not affect the substantial rights of the parties, thus not warranting reversal.
• Cornell & Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor
  573 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 38×·via Undue Prejudice
  The Commission abused its discretion by allowing the Secretary to amend the citation and complaint late in the proceedings, as this prejudiced the employer's ability to present its sole defense.
• Amos S. Tinker v. United States
  417 F.2d 542· D.C. Cir.· 1969-03-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding testimony about alleged homosexual acts, as it was cumulative and potentially prejudicial.
• Gerard D. Grau, M.D. v. Branham
  761 So. 2d 375· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-04-26 ·cited 37×
  Dr. Grau appeals a jury verdict in a medical malpractice retrial brought by Branham, challenging the admission of evidence regarding an expert witness's drug addiction, inflammatory Nazi-related comments by opposing counsel, and the use of prior trial testimony. The appellate cou
• United States v. Duncan
  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.
• United States v. Jardina
  747 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 37×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the defendant's inculpatory statements, the counterfeit bills, and evidence of Texas activities were admissible, and that no unreasonable delay occurred before his appearance before a magistrate.
• United States v. Nabors
  707 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the destruction of contraband evidence did not require suppression of testimony absent a showing that independent testing would likely produce favorable evidence, and that evidence of the defendant's pre-arrest silence in response to a private insurance inquir
• Bessman Okafor v. State
  225 So. 3d 768· Fla.· 2017-06-08 ·cited 36×
  Bessman Okafor was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder in a September 10, 2012 home invasion and shooting that killed Alex Zaldivar. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but vacated his death sentence because the jury verdict was not unanimous (11-1
• Delgado v. State
  573 So. 2d 83· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-12-28 ·cited 36×
  Esteban Delgado was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Joe King. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of other crimes (Delgado's boast of killing ten men and drug use) wi
• United States v. Jimenez
  613 F.2d 1373· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-21 ·cited 36×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant about possession of cocaine, an unrelated offense occurring a year later, violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the evidence was not relevant to any issue other than the defendant's character and w
• United States v. Sigal
  572 F.2d 1320· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to testify were harmless error, the admission of prior conviction evidence was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• State v. Kurtz
  354 So. 2d 890· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-01-10 ·cited 36×·via Undue Prejudice
  A criminal defendant's motion for continuance, when granted, removes the case from the strict application of the Speedy Trial Rule.
• United States v. Largent
  545 F.2d 1039· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 36×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the defendants' Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not violated, the statutes under which they were convicted are constitutional, and the admission of prior similar acts evidence was proper.
• United States v. Fisher
  455 F.2d 1101· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was properly admitted and the appellant's confession was voluntary, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Auckland Holmes
  452 F.2d 249· 7th Cir.· 1971-10-07 ·cited 36×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict most defendants, but suppressed cash seized from Oliver due to an unlawful arrest. The court also found that curative instructions were sufficient to mitigate prejudice from improperly admitted evidence.
• State v. Horwitz
  191 So. 3d 429· Fla.· 2016-05-05 ·cited 35×·via Danger Of Unfair Prejudice
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the State is precluded from using a defendant's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as substantive evidence of guilt under the Florida Constitution's privilege against self-incrimination and Florida evidentiary law. The court affirmed that this pro
• Espinosa v. State
  589 So. 2d 887· Fla.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 35×
  Henry Jose Espinosa was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, attempted murder, grand theft, and burglary, and sentenced to death for the murder of Teresa Rodriguez. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and sentences, rejecting numerous trial and p
• State v. Sawyer
  561 So. 2d 278· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-01-05 ·cited 35×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's suppression of Tom Sawyer's confession in a capital murder case, instead affirming the suppression order due to coercive interrogation techniques, Miranda violations, and psychological coercion during a 16-hour polic
• United States v. ST. Michael's Credit Union & Janice Sacharczyk
  880 F.2d 579· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the willful blindness instruction and the jury's finding of a willful violation and a pattern of illegal activity under the Currency Transactions Reporting Act, but reversed convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 due to a fla
• Sanders v. Clemco Indus.
  823 F.2d 214· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction without granting leave to amend the complaint to correct technical pleading deficiencies.
• United States v. Johnson
  820 F.2d 1065· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of an uncharged bank robbery, denying severance, admitting currency seized without a warrant, admitting lineup identifications, or in its handling of Jencks Act material, and denied a remand for ineffective
• Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. & Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  788 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of safer alternative designs and the indistinguishability of similar products, which were central to the plaintiff's theories of liability.
• Christopher v. State
  407 So. 2d 198· Fla.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 35×·via Prejudicial Impact
  William D. Christopher appealed his death sentence for two first-degree murders. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed six procedural issues on direct appeal and affirmed the death sentence, finding no reversible error in the trial court's jury selection, admission of confession, ev
• Eugene v. State
  53 So. 3d 1104· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-01-26 ·cited 34×
  Vladimir Eugene was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of 21-year-old Kathy Pierre and sentenced to life in prison. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, rejecting Eugene's arguments that the victim's emails were inadmissible hearsay and that det
• Thigpen v. United Parcel Servs., Inc.
  990 So. 2d 639· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-09-10 ·cited 34×
  Plaintiff Thigpen sued UPS for retaliating against him for filing workers' compensation claims by fabricating grounds for his termination. The jury awarded him $6 million, but the trial court granted UPS a new trial after determining that highly prejudicial testimony about a form
• Wyon Dale Childers v. State
  936 So. 2d 585· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-02-02 ·cited 34×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for his role in purchasing the Pensacola Soccer Complex while serving as an Escambia County Commissioner. On appeal, the court affirmed the exclusion of evidence challenging his co-conspirator's plea agreement
• Denesiz Letroy Smith v. State
  880 So. 2d 730· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-05-28 ·cited 34×
  Denesiz Smith was convicted of manslaughter and shooting into an occupied vehicle based primarily on tape-recorded statements from three witnesses who recanted their trial testimony. The court reversed, holding the trial court erred in admitting the tape-recorded statements as su
• Nyka O'Connor v. State
  835 So. 2d 1226· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-01-29 ·cited 34×
  Nyka O'Connor was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery, but the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because photographs of a shotgun, bulletproof vest, and a humorous quotation found in his home 36 days after the homicide were improperly admitted as evi
• Nevil McDonald Lopez v. State
  716 So. 2d 301· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-07-29 ·cited 34×
  Nevil McDonald Lopez was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated assault with a firearm. The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed Lopez's conviction for attempted first-degree murder of Craig Manor, reducing it to aggravated assault, and revers
• United States v. Jakobetz
  955 F.2d 786· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting DNA profiling evidence, applying the admissibility standard for novel scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• United States v. McANDERSON
  914 F.2d 934· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury selection and composition did not violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, and that evidence of prior bad acts was properly admitted.
• 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.
• Ottis Elwood Toole v. State
  479 So. 2d 731· Fla.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 34×·via Prejudicial Impact
  Ottis Toole was convicted of first-degree felony murder for setting a fire that killed George Sonnenberg at a Jacksonville boarding house in 1982. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial cour
• Johnson v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.
  734 F.2d 1304· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 34×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court should reverse the district court's judgment on the § 1981 claim because the EEOC reasonable cause determination was improperly excluded as evidence.
• Block v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc.
  712 F.2d 1241· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the plaintiff's post-discharge assault, that the evidence supported the jury's award for mental anguish, and that punitive damages were appropriate given the defendant's conduct.
• United States v. Harrison
  679 F.2d 942· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 34×·via Prejudicial Impact
  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. 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. Clavey
  565 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to release grand jury testimony, excluding rebuttal evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that any errors in handling jury communications were harmless.
• Perel v. Vanderford
  547 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 34×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on probable cause for a border strip search, nor in limiting discovery or admitting certain evidence, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Baum
  482 F.2d 1325· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-22 ·cited 34×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the conviction of Baum must be reversed due to the government's failure to disclose a crucial witness's identity and testimony until trial, denying Baum a fair opportunity to prepare his defense. Scapoli's conviction was affirmed.
• Johnson v. State
  135 So. 3d 1002· Fla.· 2014-01-09 ·cited 32×
  Richard Allen Johnson, convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual battery in the 2001 death of Tammy Hagin, appealed the denial of his postconviction Rule 3.851 motion and filed a habeas petition. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of all postconviction r
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. Whittler
  584 So. 2d 579· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-17 ·cited 32×
  CSX Transportation and the City of West Palm Beach appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Jerry Whittier for injuries sustained when he was struck by a city van while working at a garage. The court affirmed, holding that the city's negligent placement of a dumpster on the pu
• 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. 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. 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. Turpin
  707 F.2d 332· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-06 ·cited 32×·via Prejudicial Impact
  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