New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr is Moving Offices on December 15 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
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard 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
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. 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