Government of the Virgin Islands v. Robert Pinney

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that mere similarities between the two alleged incidents, without sufficient uniqueness, does not demonstrate a common scheme and plan
• noting that the “need to dispel an exculpatory [explanation] implanted by the defense ... can fulfill the proper purpose requirement of Rule 404(b)” but excluding the evidence as a violation of the “no link” requirement
• reversing because “the trial court did not explain why it was denying defendant’s motion under Rule 403”
• excluding relevant evidence of violence against children as so “emotionally charged” that curative instruction would be ineffective
• finding error when the trial court provided no explanation for its Rule 403 decision
• “plan” means “a situation in which the charged and the uncharged crimes are parts of a single series of events”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).