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