United States v. Douglas, Deon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of an earlier arrest for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine was relevant to a new charge more than a year later
• noting that charged drug sales occurred around the time and place of prior sales introduced under Rule 404(b)
• finding that even though the “evidence almost unavoidably raises the danger that the jury will improperly conclude” propensity, such “danger . . . cannot give rise to a per se rule of exclusion”
• emphasizing the significance of the district court’s instructions to the jury on the permissible and impermissible uses of evidence
• affirming admission of prior trafficking conduct that “involved sale of the same substance in almost the same neighborhood”
• affirming the admission of evidence of a prior arrest for similar conduct in part because “the district court carefully instructed the jury on the proper use of the Rule 404(b) evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).