297 F. Supp. 2d 1168 - United States v. Ameri’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rule 404(b), for instance, would not have barred testimony from a witness who saw [the defendant] put the counterfeit currency in the [vehiclel's console. Although such testimony relates to one of defendant's acts, the act is the charged crime of possessing counterfeit currency. In other words, if the evidence is of an act that is part of the charged offense, it is properly considered intrinsic. In addition, some uncharged acts performed contemporaneously with the charged crime may be termed intrinsic if they facilitate the commission of the charged crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Fetelee

2. “We note that there [are] no significant costs to requiring a Rule 404(b) analysis; all the prosecution must do is establish a not-for-character purpose for the bad acts evidence, and give pretrial noticef.] Nor does avoiding Rule 404(b) absolve the [c]ourt of the duty, upon request, to provide a limiting instruction. Therefore, we suggest that Rule 404(b) should apply to all specific bad acts proffered by the prosecution, unless such acts occurred in the time period covered by the indictment and are substantively related to the charges.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Fetelee