UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ERNEST EUGENE MAHLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that was relevant, even if prejudicial.
The defendant was convicted of concealing and removing court documents. The appeal centers on the admissibility of certain evidence presented at trial…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Effect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for concealing and removing court documents in violation of 18 U.S. C. § 2071, following a jury trial. We affirm.
The critical issue on this appeal is the admissibility of certain evidence. There is no doubt about its relevance. It was relevant to the defendant’s motive. Such relevant evidence is not rendered inadmissible because it is of a highly prejudicial nature. Smith v. Rhay, 419 F. 2d 160 (9th Cir. 1969); Loux v. United States, 389 F. 2d 911 (9th Cir. 1968); Reed v. United States, 364 F. 2d 630 (9th Cir. 1966).
Appellant’s complaint is that the relevance is so slight and the potential for prejudicial effect is so great that the evidence should have been excluded. We likewise agree with appellant that the evidence was prejudicial. The best evidence often is.
The question of the admissibility of evidence under these circumstances is one of balance which is addressed to the trial court's discretion, subject to review. Hernandez v. United States, 370 F. 2d 171 (9th Cir. 1966).
It is quite possible that other judges, as triers of fact, would have exercised their discretion in a different manner. We cannot say, however, that the ruling of the trial judge was a clear abuse of discretion.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1981)
-
United States v. Parker, 549 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Martin, 599 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Reed v. United States, 364 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1966)
- Smith v. Rhay, 419 F.2d 160 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Hernandez v. United States, 370 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1966)