United States v. Michael J. Morley, II

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that rule 404(b) evidence must fit “into a chain of logical inferences, no link of which may be the inference that the defendant has the propensity to commit the bad act.”
• “Here, as in so many cases, inquiries of relevance and proper purpose are intimately intertwined.”
• “[A] proponent’s incantation of the proper uses of such evidence under the rules dos not magically transform inadmissible evidence into admissible evidence.”
• “Neither a trial court nor an appellate court is comforted when a proponent attempts to justify ‘bad act’ evidence by resorting to a mantra-like recitation of the provisions of Rule 404(b).”
• evidence must be “both relevant and admissible for a proper purpose”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).