United States v. Kevin Patrick McCourt

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the general prohibition against predisposition-based evidence “has roots in more than one concern”
• discussing Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and concluding “on its face, Rule 404(b) applies to ‘a person’ and is not limited to the defendant.”
• explaining language from United States v. Aboumoussallem, 726 F.2d 906, 911 (2d Cir. 1984), that is virtually identical to that used in Stevens
• noting evidence of third-party acts are admissible to show “a modus operandi or a common plan”
• referring to “a deep seated notion that our system of justice should not permit the trier of fact to infer that because someone was a bad guy once, he is likely to be a bad guy again”
• “Evidence of ‘other crimes, wrongs, or acts,’ no matter by whom offered, is not admissible for the purpose of providing propensity or conforming conduct, although it may be admissible if offered for some other relevant purpose.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).