Rodrequis Armani Council v. United States, 176 L. Ed. 2d 368 (2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Rodrequis Armani Council v. United States, 176 L. Ed. 2d 368 (2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“rule 404(b) does not apply when the other act evidence is linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime and concerns the context, motive or setup of the crime; or forms an integral part of the crime; or is necessary to complete the story of the crime.”
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Brandon Ware (ca11, 2011-03-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Brandon Ware
11th Cir. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
rule 404(b) does not apply when the other act evidence is linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime and concerns the context, motive or setup of the crime; or forms an integral part of the crime; or is necessary to complete the story of the crime.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Aurora Ramentol
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the evidence need not be inconsistent with every hypothesis other than guilt, as the jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Nelson Martinez Almeida
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. U.S. Infrastructure, Inc., 576 F.3d 1195, 1210 (11th Cir.2009), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1918 , 176 L.Ed.2d 368 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Luis Fernandez
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (collecting cases, and noting that where the evidence is inextricably intertwined, it has not been “ ‘dragged in by the heels’ solely for prejudicial impact”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Terebesi v. Torreso
2d Cir. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
And while “we have jurisdiction to determine whether the issue is material” to the legal issues properly before us, we may not review “whether it is genuine.” Bolmer v. Oliveira, 594 F.3d 134, 140-41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis in original); see also Droz v. McCadden, 580 F.3d 106, 108 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (“ ‘[W]e may not review whether a dispute of fact identified by the district court is truly genuine.’ ” (quoting Escalera, 361 F.3d at 743 )), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1031 , 130 S.Ct. 1914 , 176 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rodrequis Armani Council
v.
United States
No. 09-936.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 22, 2010.
176 L. Ed. 2d 368
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (2)

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 333 Fed. Appx. 726.