green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
102.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…an error may substantially influence an outcome and thus warrant reversal even if the evidence, had no error occurred, would have been sufficient to support the conviction.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Reginald Dewayne Dixon
But cf. United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1328-29 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Rolando Antuain Williamson
we need not reverse conviction if the error had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Max Jeri
an erroneous evi-dentiary ruling will result in reversal only if the resulting error was not harmless.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Marvin Baker
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
we determine whether an error had substantial influence on the outcome by weighing the record as a whole, examining the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of defendant's guilt.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Thomas E. Fallen
an erroneous evidentiary ruling will result in reversal only if the resulting error was not harmless.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Abercrombie
when assessing the effect of the evidentiary error upon the case as a whole, we also must consider the prosecutor's closing argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. J. Harris Morgan, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
an error may substantially influence an outcome and thus warrant reversal even if the evidence, had no error occurred, would have been sufficient to support the conviction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. J. Harris Morgan, Jr.
an error may substantially influence an outcome and thus warrant reversal even if the evidence, had no error occurred, would have been sufficient to support the conviction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brendan Gates
(2×)
This is therefore not a case like United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1332 (11th Cir. 1999), where the prosecutor asked the defendant during his testimony whether he had beaten his wife, in- troduced into evidence photographs depicting the alleged beating, and the district court did not give a limiting or curative instruction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gerard Beasley
(2×)
“An error is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that it af- fected the defendant’s substantial rights.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted and al- terations adopted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tyler Wallace v. TSI Inc
“Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy, whose major function is limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1328 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation and ellipsis omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Richey
This evidence is neither “graphic” nor “arresting,” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999), and, even if true, it pales in comparison to the charged conduct. ¶102 Lastly, when considered along with the other evidence presented at trial, we think it unlikely that excluding Sandy’s statements would have changed the evidentiary picture in a meaningful way for two reasons.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Linda Banks v. Marketsource, Inc.
To justify a new trial, the elements of the case must “add up to a conclusion that the im- proper admission of evidence was not harmless error.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1334 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Adix
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Generally, we will not reverse a defendant’s conviction “if the error ‘had no substantial influence on the outcome and suffi- cient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.’” See USCA11 Case: 23-11548 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2025 Page: 14 of 21 14 Opinion of the Court 23-11548 United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.), corrected, 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eric Ewing v. Carnival Corporation
See, e.g., United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 , 54–55 (1984) (examining evidence intended to impeach a witness for bias under Rule 403); United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1328 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that impeachment evidence of violent spousal abuse was excludable under Rule 403 because it was “particularly likely to incite a jury to an irrational decision” (quotation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Thomas Burnette
“An evidentiary error ‘is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that [it] affected the defend- ant’s substantial rights.’” United States v. Frediani, 790 F.3d 1196, 1202 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paul Stephen Valdez
“An error is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that it affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Langford, 647 F.3d at 1323 (quoting United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Andres Mencia
Under the harm- less error standard, we need not reverse a conviction because of evidentiary error when “the error had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., Heard, 309 Ga. at 94 (noting that the evidence that Appellant committed the charged crimes was “shaky”); Carlton, 356 Ga. App. at 10 (holding that the improper admission of evidence of Appellant’s “sexually deviant behavior” was not harmless in light of 117 the “highly disputed evidence” about whether the appellant had the requisite intent to commit the charged crimes); Hands, 184 F3d at 1332 (holding that the erroneous admission of the appellant’s past acts of domestic violence was not harmless when the evidence that the appellant committed the charged crimes was �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Andres Mencia
Under the harmless error standard, we need not reverse a conviction because of evidentiary error when “the error had no substantial influence 21 USCA11 Case: 18-13967 Date Filed: 06/09/2021 Page: 22 of 33 on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thyrone Jones
“An error is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that it affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kenneth Lamar Weathers, Jr.
“An error is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that [it] affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Henry Austin, II
“Even if an evidentiary ruling is erroneous, ‘that ruling will result in reversal only if the error was not harmless.’” United States v. Khanani, 502 F.3d 1281, 1292 (11th Cir. 2007) (alteration adopted) (quoting United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lane
See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 722 F3d 788, 832-833 (6th Cir. 2013) (concluding that combined prejudice of various different evidentiary errors and trial court’s handling of issues related to jury’s use of transcripts of audio recordings necessitated a new trial); United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F3d 139, 178 (2d Cir. 2008) (vacating convictions based on cumulative effect of various evidentiary errors, as well as trial court’s questionable handling of jury instruction issue); United States v. Hands, 184 F3d 1322, 1334 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding that improper admission of evidence wa…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Munday
“An error is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that it affected the defendant's substantial rights.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cedric Gray
“An error is harmless unless there is a reasonable likelihood that it affected the defendant’s substantial rights,” and we will affirm where “the error had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal alteration, quotation marks, and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lourdes Margarita Garcia
We make this calculus “by weighing the record as a whole, examining the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of defendant's guilt.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotations and citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Abel Sabino-Hernandez
United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1333 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomsin Pierre
This Court will reverse on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling “only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.), corrected by 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bryant L. Cochran
United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cheryl A. Dotson
United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Peter Clarke
(2×)
We ask whether the combined effect of the errors had a “substantial influence on the outcome by weighing the record as a whole, examining the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gaskin v. the State
The Eleventh Circuit has held that “[a]n erroneous evidentiary ruling will result in reversal only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F3d 1322, 1329 (II) (C) (11th Cir. 1999), corrected, 194 F3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Azmat
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Moreover, “[a]n erroneous evidentiary ruling will result in reversal only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999). 8 D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Blaine Johnston
(2×)
But “[a]n error may substantially influence an outcome and thus warrant reversal even if the evidence, had no error occurred, would have been sufficient to 52 Case: 14-10040 Date Filed: 08/26/2015 Page: 53 of 55 support the conviction.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.), corrected, 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussing the harmless error standard in the context of erroneous evidentiary rulings).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Trevor Alexander Watson
An error is harmless if it had “no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F.2d 717, 722 (11th Cir.1992)); United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1109 (11th Cir.2010) (“Reversal is warranted only if the error resulted in actual prejudice because it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” *657 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 52…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Steven Frediana
(2×)
“An erroneous evidentiary ruling will result in reversal only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999), corrected by 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1999). 7 Case: 14-11998 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 Page: 8 of 14 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Steven Frediana
(2×)
“An erroneous evidentiary ruling will result in reversal only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999), corrected by 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Steven Frediana
(2×)
“An erroneous evidentiary ruling will result in reversal only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999), corrected by 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1999). 7 Case: 14-11998 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 Page: 8 of 14 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lawrence Perrier
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Peter Clarke
(2×)
We ask whether the combined effect of the errors had a “substantial influence on the outcome by weighing the record as a whole, examining the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. John Cameron Cain
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We need not reverse a defendant’s conviction “if the error had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” Hands, 184 F.3d at 1329 (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paul S. Kruse
(2×)
“We determine whether an error had substantial influence on the outcome by weighing the record as a whole, examining the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carl Winston Ellis
We will reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling “only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.), corrected by 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Johnson, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Andrew S. Mackey
We determine whether error was harmless “by weighing the record as a whole ... examining the facts, the trial context of the error, and the prejudice created thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the evidence of [the] defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). a.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Odalys Fernandez, e tal
Cf. Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349 , 1369 (11th Cir.2001); United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1333 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Demuntray D. Cox
United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Demetrius Gregory Floyd
We will reverse an erroneous evidentia-ry ruling “only if the resulting error was not harmless.” United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.1999), modified by 194 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir.1999); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Eddie Roosevelt HANDS
v.
Eddie Roosevelt HANDS
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Roosevelt HANDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-6718.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 27, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (No. 97-00024-001); Alex T. Howard, Jr., Judge.
ORDER
Motion of the Appellee to strike footnote 31 of the Court's opinion, dated August 18, 1999 [184 F.3d
1322], is GRANTED.