green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gerry
"Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence." United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1076 , 105 S.Ct. 574 , 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); accord United States v. Plotke, 725 F.2d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct. 151 , 83 L.Ed.2d 89 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tishon Brown, AKA Clarence Brown, Jr. Tishon Brown, United States of America v. Clarence Brown, AKA Tishon Brown Tishon Brown
(2×)
See United States v. Durant, 730 F.2d 1180, 1184 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S. Ct. 149 , 83 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See United States v. Durant, 730 F.2d 1180, 1184 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct. 149 (citations omitted) (jury likely to view government's sixteen remarks concer ning unchallenged testimony as a response to the impeachment attempt, rather than as an adverse comment upon defendant's silence).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. James Norton, United States of America v. Paul Fosco, James Pinckard, Paul A. Di Franco, James Norton, Defendants
“Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence.” United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1076 , 105 S.Ct. 574 , 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); accord United States v. Plotke, 725 F.2d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct. 151 , 83 L.Ed.2d 89 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leonard Finestone
As we have cautioned, “Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence.” United States v. Betancourt, 734 F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir.) (citing United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627, 631 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 942 , 104 S.Ct. 1924 , 80 L.Ed.2d 470 (1984)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 440 , 83 L.Ed.2d 365 (1984), and 469 U.S. 1076 , 105 S.Ct. 574 , 83 L.Ed.2d 514 (1984); accord United States v. Plotke, 725 F.2d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Leonard Triplett
“Indirect references to a defendant’s failure to testify are . . . prohibited if they either (1) manifest the prosecutor’s intention to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, or (2) are such that the jury would naturally have understood them as a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Durant, 730 F.2d 1180, 1184 (8th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Leonard D. Triplett
“Indirect references to a defendant’s failure to testify are ... prohibited if they either (1) manifest the prosecutor’s intention to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, or (2) are such that the jury would naturally have understood them as a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Durant, 730 F.2d 1180, 1184 (8th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct. 149 , 83 L.Ed.2d 87 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Albert S.
See, e.g., United States v. Durant, 730 F.2d 1180, 1182 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct. 149 , 83 L.Ed.2d 87 (1984) (holding that a passenger in a vehicle may move to suppress evidence uncovered as a direct result of an unlawful stop).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Budis
(2×)
Proof of specific acts of sexual activity with persons other than the defendant “is ordinarily insufficiently probative * * * of [a victim’s] general credibility as a witness * * * to outweigh its highly prejudicial effect.” United States v. Kasto, 584 F.2d 268, 271-72 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 930 , 99 S.Ct. 1267 , 59 L.Ed.2d 486 (1979); see also People v. Wilson, 678 P. 2d 1024 (Colo.Ct.App.1983) (in sexual-assault case, deletion of portions of child-victim’s diary relating prior sexual acts with others was proper), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct. 148 , 83 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Driskill v. State
(2×)
See also United States v. Plotke, 725 F.2d 1303 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub. nom. 469 U.S. 843 , 105 S.Ct. 151 , 83 L.Ed.2d 89 (1984); United States v. Johnson, 700 F.2d 699 (11th Cir.1983); Gordon, 634 F.2d 639 ; and United States v. Febre, 425 F.2d 107 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied 400 U.S. 849 , 91 S.Ct. 40 , 27 L.Ed.2d 87 (1970), where the doctrine was applied to obviate resentencing or a new trial where some of the conviction counts were reversed on appeal.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mohr
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 83-6823.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1984.
Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.