YOUNG

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …ry was so prejudicial that the district court abused its discretion in admitting it. See United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F. 2d 717, 721 (11th Cir.1992) (evidence of double murder probative and admissible in trial for gun possession), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1068, 113 S.Ct. 1020, 122 L.Ed.2d 166 (1993). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Cutler, or in admitting the evidence of the SouthTrust ro…
• United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …or harmless where "the purported error had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict." United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F. 2d 717, 722 (11th Cir.1992) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1068, 113 S.Ct. 1020, 122 L.Ed.2d 166 (1993). Even discounting the credibility of Williams' testimony, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's conclusion that Dickerson was nevertheless involved in the charged conspiracy. Cf. H…
• United States v. Forrest Jimmy Utter, Jr., 97 F.3d 509 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …t warrant reversal “if the purported error had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F. 2d 717 (11th Cir.1992) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1068, 113 S.Ct. 1020, 122 L.Ed.2d 166 (1993). In this case it is not at all clear that the Kentucky fire evidence influenced the jury’s decision to find guilt. The government argued in closing only that the 1988 Kentucky fire should have been reported…