Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00090721

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

f that it is what its proponent says it is. The requirement of authentication is thus a condition precedent to admitting evidence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 497 (2d Cir. 1984). A motion in limine to preclude evidence calls on the "[C]ourt to make a preliminary determination on the admissi

Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2010) 20, Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247 (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2021) 39, 40 Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir.1984) 41 Smalls, No. CR 06-2403 RB, 2008 WL 11361098 (D.N.M. Jan. 24, 2008) 3 Stein, 521 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 3

oceed under Rule 4O4(b)." United States v. Townsend, No. SI 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (citing United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). evidence should also be excluded under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. As argued in our initial Motion, evid

EFTA00074479

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 6, 8, 9, 10 United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) 11 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) 12 United States v. Townsend, No. S1 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) 6, 9, 10 United State

08) 9 United States v. McCallum, 584 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) 5, 6, 11 United States v. Mills, 895 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1990) 12 United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 6, 8, 9, 10 United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) 11 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 4

EFTA00087774

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page