CARDEN ET AL.

v.

ARKOMA ASSOCIATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Delgado, 56 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 1995)
  …ng probative value and prejudice, “[t]he greater the government’s need for evidence of intent, the more likely that the probative value will outweigh any possible prejudice.” United States v. Hicks, 798 F. 2d 446, 451 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 886, 93 L.Ed.2d 839 (1987); see also United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F. 2d 1216, 1225 (11th Cir.1993); Cardenas, 895 F. 2d at 1344. Hernandez further argues that the lack of similarity in the drug crimes — one involved a major, multi…
• United States v. Hernandez, 896 F.2d 513 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …nt to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine in Miami. Cf. United States v. Hicks, 798 F. 2d 446, 451 (11th Cir.1986) (admissibility under Rule 404(b) of evidence of prior dealing in substantially smaller amounts of cocaine upheld), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 886, 93 L.Ed.2d 839 (1987). Likewise we cannot find an abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s determination that Hernandez’s conviction for conspiring to possess and possessing with intent to distribute an undetermined amount of marijua…
• United States v. Cardenas, 895 F.2d 1338 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …urt has broad discretion to decide questions of admissibility of evidence, and the appellate court will disturb a ruling only if the trial court abused its discretion. United States v. Hicks, 798 F. 2d 446, 451 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, [*1343] 479 U.S. 1035, 107 S.Ct. 886, 93 L.Ed.2d 839 (1987). In the case before us, the trial court admitted evidence of prior acts under Rule 404(b) to show intent and knowledge. Evidence of prior offenses to prove intent is admissible if two requirements are fulfilled.…

  ← 1 / 2 →