Opinion ID: 2457
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Rulings on Evidence of Firearm Possession and Gambling

Text: Finally, we find no error in the District Court's admission of evidence of defendant's firearm possession and knowledge of the gambling operation at his place of employment. We review a district court's ruling to admit or exclude evidence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, and will reverse [a district court] only where a ruling to admit or exclude evidence is manifestly erroneous. See United States v. Samet, 466 F.3d 251, 254 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants must also show that any error in admitting the challenged evidence was not harmless error. An error is harmless if the appellate court can conclude with fair assurance that the improperly admitted evidence did not substantially influence the jury. Hynes v. Coughlin, 79 F.3d 285, 291 (2d Cir.1996). Even assuming that the challenged testimony was improperly admitted, [w]e will [nevertheless] not grant a new trial unless we find that the introduction of inadmissible evidence was a clear abuse of discretion and was so clearly prejudicial to the outcome of the trial that we are convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice. We measure prejudice by assessing error in light of the record as a whole. Phillips v. Bowen, 278 F.3d 103, 111 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We cannot say that the challenged testimony yielded a seriously erroneous result in the finding of liability here. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err in admitting the contested evidence. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.