New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "They are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More


Upon request, the court “shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly”, for example when evidence is admitted which is admissible to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose.

See                  U.S. v. Washington, 592 F.2d 680 (2d Cir. 1979)[error to refuse to give instruction limiting consideration of prior felony conviction, admitted for the purpose of impeachment];

U.S. v. Diaz, 585 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1978)[limiting instruction on prior conviction admitted pursuant to Rule 609 for impeachment];

U.S. v. Garcia, 530 F.2d 650 (5th Cir. 1976) [failure to limit consideration of prior inconsistent statement to impeachment was not “plain error”, absent a request for such an instruction].

See also           U.S. v. Brown, 562 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1977);

U.S. v. Bridwell, 583 F.2d 1135 (10th Cir. 1978);

U.S. v. Albert, 595 F.2d 283 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 963 (1979) [“other crimes” evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) against co-defendants];

U.S. v. Ragghianti, 560 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1977)[prior inconsistent statement used for impeachment purposes].

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact