Opinion ID: 359689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Similar Acts.

Text: 76 The Government questioned Rabbitt and two other witnesses about money paid to Rabbitt's law firm to gain his support of other legislation. Some of these payments were disguised as retainers, with no law work performed similar to the Berger-Field legal retainers. Rabbitt contends the admission of this testimony into evidence denied him a fair trial. We do not agree. 77 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits evidence of other acts, similar to the conduct charged in the indictment, to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 28 See 10 Moore's Federal Practice P 404.21(2). 78 The evidence in question bore on issues relating to Rabbitt's method of obtaining money from parties interested in legislation and his scheme of laundering the funds as retainers. See United States v. Adcock, supra, 558 F.2d 397. The admission of such evidence rests within the discretion of the trial judge. 10 Moore's Federal Practice P 404.21(2). We have reviewed the record and find no error in admitting this questioned testimony. The district court refused admission of testimony of similar import regarding other incidents and, in our judgment, exercised extreme fairness to Rabbitt in ruling upon evidence of the kind here in question. 79