United States v. Mare

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the defendant “could reasonably have gambled that a limiting instruction geared toward an extrinsic-evidence purpose would have done more harm than good” by drawing the jury’s attention to the referenced uncharged crime
• explaining supplementary character of that Rule to the intrinsic-evidence rule; where challenged evidence is intrinsic to crime charged in indictment, Rule 404(b) is “not implicated at all” (internal quotation marks omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).