United States v. Thomas Dean Mills

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of prior crimes during the State's case-in-chief to prove the defendant's intent to counterfeit because the defendant \raised the issue of intent in his opening to the jury\
• affirming district court’s admission of other-crimes evidence where defendant claimed that “his conduct had an innocent explanation” because he lacked the “intent” to commit the offense
• rec- ognizing that Faretta right was not eroded where pro se defendant conceded that standby counsel took no “action that was not authorized by Mills or adopted any strategy or posi- tion that was not initiated by Mills”
• even where intent is not in issue, Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar acts to prove a “signature crime,” i.e., a modus operandi where the crimes are “so nearly identical in method as to ear-mark them as the handiwork of the accused.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).