Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that any prejudicial effect is typically cured by instructing the jury “that it may not consider the guilty plea and/or plea agreement as evidence that the defendant is guilty of the offenses”
• explaining that a trial court’s discretionary decision to admit evidence “cannot be reversed merely because we, as members of a reviewing court, possess a different view concerning the probative value or prejudicial effect of the challenged evidence” (quotation omitted
• identifying as an example of probative value evidence that “allow[s] the jury accurately to assess the credibility of the witness”
• “In order to justify reversal [under an abuse of discretion standard], a [trial] court’s analysis and resulting conclusion must be ‘arbitrary or irrational.’ ”
• “If judicial self-restraint is ever desirable, it is when a Rule 403 analysis of a trial court is reviewed by an appellate tribunal.” (quoting United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 767 (3d Cir. 1978))
• “[Pjrejudi-cial effect is typically cured through a curative instruction to the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).