United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998 · Evidence
157 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 1998)
Updated
EvidenceFed. R. Evid. 413propensity evidencedue processrehearing en bancfundamental fairnesssexual misconduct evidence
Facts
The provided text does not describe the underlying offense facts. The dissent focuses instead on Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and its admission of propensity evidence in sexual misconduct cases. Judge Arnold emphasizes the longstanding common-law skepticism toward propensity evidence and cites concerns that Rule 413 threatens fundamental fairness. He also notes commentary and committee objections suggesting that such evidence creates a serious risk that a jury will convict based on past conduct or unsavory character.
Issue
Whether the full court should rehear the case en banc to consider whether Federal Rule of Evidence 413 poses so great a risk of conviction based on past conduct or character that it violates due process.
Rule
The provided text does not announce a controlling black-letter rule because it is a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc rather than a majority merits opinion.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a federal prosecution in St. Louis, the trial judge admitted evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 413 that Devin Cross had previously committed sexual assaults. On appeal, Devin argues that a published Eighth Circuit opinion conclusively held Rule 413 unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because a dissenting judge said the rule threatens fundamental fairness.
How should the appellate court characterize that prior opinion's legal effect based solely on the text provided?
Explanation. The provided text is expressly a dissent from the order denying rehearing en banc. It argues that the en banc court should consider whether Rule 413 violates due process, but it does not announce a controlling merits holding either upholding or invalidating the rule.