United States v. Walter v. Cross, A/K/A Bobo Walter v. Cross, United States of America v. Jules C. Melograne

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that evidence of prior bad acts which was “highly probative” because it addressed the defendants’ main defense should not be excluded under Rule 403 merely because there was “some risk” of prejudice
• noting that “Rule 404(b) evidence is especially probative when the charged offense involves a conspiracy”
• upholding admission of evidence of other bad acts to refute claims that the defendants acted unwittingly and in good faith in connection with the events giving rise to the conspiracy charged
• an issue raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing en banc cannot be considered because it was not raised on direct appeal
• “ ‘Rule 403 ... does not generally require the government to sanitize its case, to deflate its witnesses’ testimony, or to tell its story in a monotone.’ ”
• “it is - 30 - preferable to avoid passing judgment on counsel’s performance when possible”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).