Opinion ID: 2994260
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the evidence is directed toward establishing

Text: a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue, (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act, and (4) the evidence has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. United States v. Gibson, 170 F.3d 673, 678 (7th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Lloyd, 71 F.3d 1256, 1264 (7th Cir. 1995). In weighing the probative value of evidence against the dangers and considerations enumerated in Rule 403, the general rule is that the balance should be struck in favor of admission. United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 797 (8th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). See also United States v. Candelaria- Silva, 162 F.3d 698, 705 (1st Cir. 1998) (Rule 403 tilts the balance in favor of admission); United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1378 (4th Cir. 1996) (the balance under Rule 403 should be struck in favor of admissibility). On appeal, Denberg challenges the judge’s decision to admit the evidence on the first and fourth prongs (the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged and the evidence has probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice); he concedes that the evidence demonstrates that the other acts are similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant and that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that he committed the similar acts (the second and third prongs)./6 On appeal, Denberg argues that the danger was high, if not an actuality, that the jury could not and would not separate the purpose of their consideration of the ’other acts’ from their consideration of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Denberg as to the crimes with which he was actually charged. Denberg’s other argument is that because the Government offered ample circumstantial evidence in the issue of intent the introduction of evidence from Motheral and Eutsey was unfairly prejudicial.