United States of America v. Jamie Lamont Hawthorne

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that relevance of evidence was not outweighed by any potential prejudice within the meaning of either Rule 404(b) or Rule 403 where the evidence was used for a limited purpose and the district court gave a limiting instruction
• finding that relevance of evidence was not outweighed by any potential prejudice within the meaning of either Rule 404(b) or Rule 403 where the evidence was used for a limited purpose and the district court gave a limiting instruction
• holding defendant's mere presence defense put his knowledge and intent at issue
• finding no abuse of discretion where the district court “might well have articulated more detailed findings in ruling on [the] objection,” but it was clear that the district court considered the relevant factors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).