green
Positive treatment
50.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Briscoe
In other words, “[e]vidence is unfairly prejudicial if it makes a conviction more likely because it provokes an emotional response in the jury or otherwise tends to affect adversely the jury’s attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its judgment as to his guilt or innocence of the crime charged.” United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted). “[B]ecause district court judges have front-row seats during trial and extensive experience ruling on evidentiary issues,” we “give district courts considerable discretion in performing the Ru…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elizabeth Graham v. Bristol Hospice Holdings, Inc.
Evid. 403. 23 United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999)). 24 Docket No. 66, at 3. record, and particularly that it was prepared in the normal course of business.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Summers
“However, exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 . . . ‘is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.’” Tan, 254 F.3d at 1211 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Skinner v. Berry Petroleum Company
Ms. Clegg is a gauger and lease operator for Savage and is expected to testify regarding her personal experience and knowledge regarding the subject thief hatch and well.27 According to Plaintiff’s response, Jason 25 United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)). 26 Docket No. 139. 27 Docket No. 129, at 6.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. DolGenCorp, LLC
Excluding evidence under Rule 403 is therefore “an extraordinary remedy [that] should be used sparingly.” Watson, 766 F.3d at 1241 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)); Boardwalk Apartments, L.C. v. State Auto Property and Cas.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Abe
However, “exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 that is otherwise admissible under the other rules ‘is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.’” Tan, 254 F.3d at 1211 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Martinez
“The district court has considerable discretion in performing the Rule 403 balancing test,” but “exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 that is otherwise admissible under the other rules ‘is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.’” United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP v. United States Election Integrity Plan
Evid. 403. “[E]xclusion of evidence under Rule 403 that is otherwise admissible under the rules ‘is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.’” United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir 1999)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Murry
Irving, 665 F.3d at 1213 (citing United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Csuha v. Best Friends Animal Society
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Garrity v. The Governance Board of Carinos Charter School
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Roberts, 88 F.3d 872, 880 (10th Cir. 1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Philmar Dairy, LLC v. Armstrong Farms
“The district court has considerable discretion in performing the Rule 403 balancing test,” but “exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 that is otherwise admissible under the other rules ‘is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.’” United States v. Tan, 254 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dailey v. Hecht
(2×)
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Roberts, 88 F.3d 872, 880 (10th Cir. 1996)). “[T]he unfair prejudice aspect of Rule 403 cannot be equated with testimony which is simply unfavorable to a party.” Rodriguez, 192 F.3d at 951 (quoting United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cox
Excluding evidence under Rule 403 is therefore “an extraordinary remedy [that] should be used sparingly.” Watson, 766 F.3d at 1241 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Watson
First, as a general matter, “our law favors admission of all relevant evidence not otherwise proscribed; thus, exclusion under this rule is ‘an extraordinary remedy [that] should be used sparingly.’ ” United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1213 (10th Cir.2011) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999)); accord Smalls, 752 F.3d at 1238; Tan, 254 F.3d at 1211 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sanchez
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Woodard
This conclusion is consistent with our precedent which “favors admission of all relevant evidence not otherwise proscribed” and recognizes “exclusion under [Rule 403] is ‘an extraordinary remedy [that] should be used sparingly.’ ” United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d 1184, 1213 (10th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999)) (emphasis and alterations in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Enriquez
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Irving
(2×)
To the contrary, our law favors admission of all relevant evidence not otherwise proscribed; thus, exclusion under this rule is "an extraordinary remedy [that] should be used sparingly." United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Moncayo
We conclude that the evidence was of a kind that “tends to affect adversely the jury’s attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its judgment as to his guilt or innocence of the crime charged.” See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Roberts, 88 F.3d 872, 880 (10th Cir.1996)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Downs
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 950-51 (10th Cir.1999) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stout
(2×)
Of particular relevance to the instant case is the Tenth Circuit's decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stout
Of particular relevance to the instant case is the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Woody
We recognize “exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 that is otherwise admissible under the other rules ‘is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.’ ” Tan, 254 F.3d at 1211 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ponce-Garcia
See United States v. Badilla, 419 F.3d 1128 , 1132 n.1 (10th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1344 (2006); United States v. Cota-M eza, 367 F.3d 1218, 1224 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 876 (2004); United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ponce-Garcia
See United States v. Badilla, 419 F.3d 1128 , 1132 n. 1 (10th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1344 , 164 L.Ed.2d 58 (2006); United States v. Cota-Meza, 367 F.3d 1218, 1224 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 876 , 125 S.Ct. 276 , 160 L.Ed.2d 128 (2004); United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Salazar-Garcia
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Leonard
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. “ ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it makes a conviction more likely because it provokes an emotional response in the jury or otherwise tends to affect adversely the jury’s attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its judgment as to his guilt or i…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Magallanez
Exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 “is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.” United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cota-Meza
United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir.1999); see also United States v. Pollock, 926 F.2d 1044, 1050 (11th Cir.1991) (one million dollars worth of cocaine supports an inference of knowledge of the contraband).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Spillman
Evidence is excluded as unfairly prejudicial if it “provokes an emotional response in the jury or otherwise tends to affect adversely the jury’s attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its judgment as to his guilt or innocence of the crime charged.” United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Pham
R.Evid. 408. “ ‘Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it makes a conviction more likely because it provokes an emotional response in the jury or otherwise tends to affect adversely the jury’s attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its judgment as to his guilt or innocence of the crime charged.’ ” United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Roberts, 88 F.3d 872, 880 (10th Cir.1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Arnulfo-Sanchez
The high value of controlled substances may be used to infer constructive possession based on the logic that it is unlikely that the true owner of the vehicle or the substance would leave such a valuable commodity unattended or in possession of a stranger, “especially a substance whose odor clearly revealed its location.” Hooks, 780 F.2d at 1532 ; United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Tan
(3×)
However, exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 that is otherwise admissible under the other rules “is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.” United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999) (quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Martinez
Rule J/.03 Martinez also objects to Tyler’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which states that relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” “Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly.” United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Figueroa
This court has often recognized both the relevance and importance of evidence of the value of drugs to prove knowledge. - 11 - See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases which support proposition that value of drugs is relevant to knowledge of drugs’ presence); Hooks, 780 F.2d at 1532 (finding that value of drugs in truck supported knowing possession given that it is unlikely that the owner of the truck would have left $10,000 worth of PCP in the truck); see also United States v. Pollock, 926 F.2d 1044, 1050 (11th Cir. 1991) (finding that “[t]he mo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. Vanderbilt University
Thus, excluding relevant evidence under Tenn.R.Evid. 403 is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly, see United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 949 (10th Cir.1999); Caparotta v. Entergy Corp., 168 F.3d 754 , 758 (5th Cir.1999); Westcott v. Crinklaw, 68 F.3d 1073, 1077-78 (8th Cir.1995); Trevino v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Seros., 893 S.W.2d 243, 248 (Tex.App.1995); Towner v. State, 685 P.2d 45, 49 (Wyo.1984), and persons seeking to exclude otherwise admissible and relevant evidence have a significant burden of persuasion.
cited
Cited "see"
Martinez v. Dart Trans, Inc.
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Martinez v. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martinez v. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999) (“Evidence may be unfairly prejudicial if it would likely provoke an emotional response from the jury or would otherwise tend to adversely affect the jury's attitude toward a particular matter”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Deleon
See United States v. Rodriguez , 192 F.3d 946 , 951 (10th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Arnold (Robert)
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (explaining that evidence is only unfairly prejudicial if it increases the risk of conviction by adversely affecting the jury’s attitude toward the defendant in a manner unrelated to his guilt or innocence).
cited
Cited "see"
SFF-TIR, LLC v. Stephenson
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Goldstone
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Walton v. New Mexico State Land Office
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Shirley
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Goldstone
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999)(Sanborn, J.).
cited
Cited "see"
Leon v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999)(Sanborn, J.).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Folse
See United States v. Rodriguez, 192 F.3d 946, 951 (10th Cir.1999)(Sanborn, J.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
German Espinoza Montero-Camargo, United States of America v. Lorenzo Sanchez-Guillen
v.
German Espinoza Montero-Camargo, United States of America v. Lorenzo Sanchez-Guillen
97-50643.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 25, 1999.
Published
192 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 1999)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GERMAN ESPINOZA MONTERO-CAMARGO, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LORENZO SANCHEZ-GUILLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-50643, No. 97-50645
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
October 25, 1999
Order
1
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that these cases be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion, United States v. Montero-Camargo, 177 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1999), is withdrawn.