Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 31 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Grady William Powers.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Grady William Powers Anchor | green | “only in those instances where the trial judge believes that there is a genuine risk that the emotions of the jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and that this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the offered evidence.” | 10 |
| 2 | United States v. Grady William Powers | green | “all evidence of other crimes or acts except that which tends to prove only criminal disposition.” | 5 |
| 3 | United States v. Catherine Yvonne Acker | green | “trial courts routinely allow joinder of different bank robbery counts against a single defendant in the same indictment.” | 4 |
| 4 | United States v. Dwight Armstrong | green | “because of the efficiency in trying the defendant on related counts in the same trial.” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. Steve Wayne Holloway and Edwin L. Hines | green | “the fact that the defendant was a felon would not have been repeated and repeated to the jury, nor is it likely that his possession of the gun would have been admissible” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Michael Crandale Williams | green | “belief that efforts to define reasonable doubt are likely to confuse rather than clarify the concept.” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Mir | green | “the evidence of labor certification fraud was overwhelming, and it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict on the various counts absent the challenged testimony” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.