Opinion ID: 797076
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Erroneous Admission of Evidence Warrants a New Trial

Text: 41 Testimony concerning Simpson's past drug sales thus cannot be justified under either the identity exception to Rule 404(b) or under the intricately related evidence doctrine. To succeed on a plain error challenge, a defendant must also demonstrate that the error in admission affected his substantial rights, meaning that the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. If so, we may correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770. 42 Simpson urges that we look not simply at the erroneous admission of evidence about his past drug deals when we consider whether he should receive a new trial. Rather, he contends that the inference the prosecutor drew in his closing argument from the evidence regarding Simpson's prior crack cocaine sales, along with the erroneous admission of this evidence, deprived him of a fair trial.