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

• Constantina Szeliga v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  728 F.2d 566· 1st Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing two films illustrating an expert's theory to be shown to the jury, as their probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice or unfair surprise.
• United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio
  702 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the importation of a large quantity of marijuana, coupled with other circumstances, is sufficient to infer a defendant's knowing participation in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute.
• Westley v. State
  416 So. 2d 18· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-06-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that allowing a written statement to be read verbatim after the detective testified to its contents and it was admitted into evidence was not an abuse of discretion, nor was the prosecutor's closing argument improper.
• United States v. Clemons
  676 F.2d 122· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 22×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that evidence of a second drug transaction, including the defendant's statement, was admissible to prove identity and was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
• United States v. Kibler
  667 F.2d 452· 4th Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge believes venue for the substantive offense lay solely in the District of Columbia, making the trial in Maryland reversible error.
• United States v. Mack
  643 F.2d 1119· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 22×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that evidence of a subsequent drug sale was admissible to rebut an entrapment defense, and prosecutorial remarks, while inappropriate, were harmless error.
• United States v. Tercero
  640 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 22×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the loss of photographs did not warrant reversal, the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule in advance on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment.
• Keen v. Detroit Diesel Allison and Detroit Diesel Engine
  569 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1978-04-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of unanswered discovery requests, presented to the jury as deemed admitted, was not harmless error and required reversal.
• United States v. Gubelman
  571 F.2d 1252· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-24 ·cited 22×
  Evidence of prior similar acts is inadmissible to prove identity unless the acts share unique, distinguishing characteristics, not just general similarity.
• United States v. Henderson
  565 F.2d 900· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 22×·via Prejudicial Impact
  A prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence at the time of arrest, before Miranda warnings, is impermissible if it lacks significant probative value and carries an intolerably prejudicial impact, even without objection.
• United States v. Stumes
  549 F.2d 831· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-22 ·cited 22×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the warrantless seizure of a typewriter from a prisoner's cell was permissible due to diminished expectations of privacy and that reference to the prisoner's prior murder trial was admissible.
• United States v. Wilson
  536 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-07 ·cited 22×·via Undue Prejudice
• Jewel Grier v. State
  27 So. 3d 97· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-12-23 ·cited 21×
  Grier was convicted of sexual abuse charges involving a teenage victim. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of "Williams rule" testimony from two other alleged victims, arguing the similar fact evidence was unduly prejudicial. The Fourth District affirmed, holdin
• Melendez v. State
  700 So. 2d 791· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-10-29 ·cited 21×
  Edwin Melendez was convicted of burglary and attempted sexual battery based on the victim's identification that he had entered her home and assaulted her while she slept. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in three ways: improperly di
• State v. Rusti H. Osvath
  661 So. 2d 1252· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-10-25 ·cited 21×
  The circuit court departed from essential requirements of law by reversing convictions on grounds not raised by the respondent.
• Lewis v. Kendrick
  944 F.2d 949· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 21×·via Undue Prejudice
  An unreasonably high fee demand by a plaintiff's attorney does not automatically forfeit the plaintiff's right to any fee award.
• Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. Terrell
  417 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-12 ·cited 21×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider the "false" portions of the Wyche letter as a basis for damages, as those issues had been settled in a prior libel suit, requiring a new trial against the Bureau. The court affirmed the judgment notwithsta
• United States v. Eisen
  974 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-17 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the RICO convictions, holding that a scheme to defraud civil litigants of money through mail fraud and witness bribery constitutes racketeering activity under RICO, and that the definition of 'witness' under New York Penal Law § 215.00 includes individuals paid
• Travers v. State
  578 So. 2d 793· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-18 ·cited 20×·via Undue Prejudice
  Robert Travers appeals his conviction for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault on a child under twelve, raising multiple trial errors including denial of a motion for acquittal, prosecutorial misconduct, trial court interference, and improper jury instructions. The appe
• United States v. REY
  923 F.2d 1217· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court concurred that evidence seized under a warrant, though potentially overbroad in scope, was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
• C.A. Assocs. v. DOW Chem. Co.
  918 F.2d 1485· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the admissibility of evidence concerning other buildings under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, balancing probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, and delay.
• Hoffert v. State
  559 So. 2d 1246· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-04-11 ·cited 20×
  Donald Hoffert appeals his second-degree murder conviction for fatally shooting Peter Sullivan during an apartment complex dispute. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for conviction but reversed and remanded due to a misleading jury instructi
• State v. Andres
  552 So. 2d 1151· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-11-07 ·cited 20×
  The State appeals from a pretrial suppression order excluding co-conspirators' statements from a retrial on trafficking charges. The court reverses, holding that an acquittal on conspiracy does not preclude admission of co-conspirators' hearsay statements at trial on the traffick
• United States v. Marroquin
  885 F.2d 1240· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-27 ·cited 20×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the exclusions in section 3161(h) of the Speedy Trial Act do not apply to the thirty-day period in section 3161(c)(2), and that other claims regarding double jeopardy, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, and sufficiency of evidence were meritless.
• Lucien Sherrod v. Berry
  856 F.2d 802· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 20×
• DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton
  833 F.2d 183· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 20×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint without providing a justifying reason, as such denial is inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Francis v. State
  512 So. 2d 280· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-09-04 ·cited 20×
  Robert Arnold Francis was convicted of one count of capital sexual battery and two counts of battery against his three young nieces. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to evidentiary errors that admitted prejudicial and character-based testimony to prov
• Woodruff v. Lane
  818 F.2d 1369· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 20×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other home invasions for modus operandi, the sufficiency of the evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to the level of constitutional error denying a fair trial.
• United States v. Shaw
  829 F.2d 714· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 20×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the prosecutor's opening statement improperly vouched for a witness's credibility, but this error was harmless. The court also held that a mistrial was declared out of manifest necessity, thus retrial did not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  810 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 20×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish a stateless vessel, territorial nexus, and conspiracy, and that separate punishments for two conspiracy counts did not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Galyen
  798 F.2d 331· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
• West v. Love
  776 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's confinement in a segregation unit and his disciplinary history was proper, and that a post-trial threat by an officer to a witness did not warrant relief from judgment.
• United States v. Hadi Zandi
  769 F.2d 229· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 20×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for possession of opium with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence, and that their rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated.
• Kelsay v. Consol. Rail Corp. & Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
  749 F.2d 437· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 20×
  The exclusion of evidence of prior accidents and a flawed jury instruction constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal and a new trial.
• United States v. Hickerson
  732 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 20×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that evidence of vandalism was admissible to prove conspiracy, even if the defendant's direct involvement wasn't initially known, and that the defendant waived appellate review by failing to object at trial absent plain error.
• Radtke v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  707 F.2d 999· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a witness's prior felony conviction for impeachment purposes, nor in admitting the judgment of conviction or evidence of an ancillary lawsuit to show bias.
• United States v. Hans
  684 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding certain checks and ledgers as evidence, finding they were admissible under the Sixth Amendment and Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• United States v. Tunsil
  672 F.2d 879· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony of a prior drug deal, in admitting coconspirator hearsay after a proper hearing, or in denying the motion for acquittal based on insufficient evidence.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  668 F.2d 1199· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 20×·via Undue Prejudice
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in applying the doctrine of laches to dismiss the EEOC's Title VII action due to unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice to the defendant.
• United States v. Skramstad
  649 F.2d 1259· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 20×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient to establish probable cause, and the admission of evidence of other crimes was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
• United States v. Kerley
  643 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury instruction on 'willfulness' was inadequate because it failed to inform the jury that willfulness requires a finding of bad purpose or evil motive, which is an essential element of a 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 violation.
• United States v. Monahan
  633 F.2d 984· 1st Cir.· 1980-11-21 ·cited 20×
  Evidence of threats to a witness is admissible to show consciousness of guilt, and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect under Rule 403 when the conduct is not innocuous.
• United States v. Smith
  602 F.2d 834· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting identification testimony, evidence of a codefendant's participation, a discarded glove, or post-arrest statements, and that the jury instructions and mandatory sentence were constitutional.
• United States v. Watkins
  600 F.2d 201· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 20×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of theft, co-conspirator declarations, or prior failure to file tax returns, as these were relevant to proving tax evasion and the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting them.
• United States v. Royce Lee Bledsoe
  531 F.2d 888· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-24 ·cited 20×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court held that the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of prior criminal activity and bad character, along with unsubstantiated remarks in the prosecutor's closing argument, constituted prejudicial error denying the defendant a fair trial.
• United States v. Cockerham
  476 F.2d 542· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in conducting the voir dire, admitting evidence, or controlling the presentation of the insanity defense.
• McCONKEY v. United States
  444 F.2d 788· 8th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 20×·via Danger Of Unfair Prejudice
  The court held that evidence of similar wrongful acts, both prior and subsequent to the charged offenses, is admissible in fraud cases, and that the adoption of a rule requiring advance notice of such evidence is a matter for federal rulemakers, not individual circuits.
• Sims v. BMW of N. Am. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04 ·cited 19×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions in limine, excluding certain evidence and arguments while allowing others, based on rules of evidence and procedural fairness.
• Emilia L. Carr v. State
  156 So. 3d 1052· Fla.· 2015-02-05 ·cited 19×
  Emilia Carr was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for her role in the premeditated killing of Heather Strong. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed her conviction and death sentence, rejecting numerous challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings, treatm
• Petruschke v. State
  125 So. 3d 274· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-03-06 ·cited 19×
  Luke Petruschke was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation of a three-year-old child. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his convictions and remanded for a new trial due to improper prosecutorial closing arguments, while addressing evidentiary issues