United States v. Kenneth Hammond (1986)

Moreover, the evidence was very relevant; we have held that juries “may consider evidence of attempts to influence a witness as relevant in showing a consciousness of guilt.” United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir. 1986).

The disputed testimony was probative of relevant issues at trial, including Hesser’s consciousness of guilt, United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir.1986), control over his wife’s finances, cf. United States v. Mueller, 74 F.3d 1152, 1155 (11th Cir.1996), and intent to evade the payment of taxes.

See United States v. Veteto, 701 F.2d 136, 140 (11th Cir.1983) (finding a mistrial not warranted, where “prosecutor did not seek or expect the answer given”); United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir.1986) (“Courts may consider evidence of attempts to influence a witness as relevant in showing a consciousness of guilt.”).

United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir.1986).

United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir.1986).

We review the denial of the motion to sever for abuse of discretion, United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir.1986), and affirm the order of the district court.

See United States v. Mendez-Ortiz, 810 F.2d 76, 79 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 922 , 107 S.Ct. 1384 , 94 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (“Evidence that defendant attempted to bribe and threaten a witness is admissible to show consciousness of guilt.”); United States v. Guerrero, 803 F.2d 783, 785 (3d Cir.1986) (In a conspiracy case evidence of a threat against a potential witness “may be admitted to show consciousness of guilt”); United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 …

See, e.g., U.S. v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1326-27 (11th Cir. 2015) (defendant’s attempt to persuade wife to change her testimony before trial by, inter alia, telling her the Bible said she should do what her husband said was probative of his consciousness of guilt); U.S. v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir. 1986) (no abuse of discretion to admit testimony that defendant “had used various means, including offers of money, in an attempt to persuade [witness] not to testi…

See Abram v. State, 95 Nev. 352, 356 , 594 P.2d 1143, 1145 (1979) CDeclarations made after the commission of the crime which indicate consciousness of guilt, or are 4 4:7,L inconsistent with innocence, or tend to establish intent may be admissible."); see also United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir. 1986) ("Courts may consider evidence of attempts to influence a witness as relevant in showing a consciousness of guilt.").

United States v. Nixon, 918 F.2d 895 , 895 & n. 1 (11th Cir.1990) (95 counts); Broadwell, 870 F.2d at 605 (21 counts); United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1986) (116 counts).

See United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1986) (affirming pharmacist’s conviction where the evidence showed that the “outrageous volume” of controlled substances prescribed by a pill mill “would have alerted any pharmacist that prescriptions were being improperly issued,” but the pharmacist filled those prescriptions anyway). 22 USCA11 Case: 17-13455 Date Filed: 10/09/2020 Page: 23 of 55 Another red flag was the drug combinations that AMARC prescribed.

See United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir.1986) (evidence of attempts to influence a witness admissible under Rule 403).

See generally United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir.1986).

See United States v. Hammond, 781 F.2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Bongard, 713 F.2d 419, 420-21 (8th Cir.1983); United States v. Turner, 485 F.2d 976, 985 (D.C.Cir.1973) (remarks of Leven-thal, J.); United States v. Cirillo, 468 F.2d 1233, 1240 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 989 , 93 S.Ct. 1501 , 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973).